Skip to main content

Full text of "Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriations for fiscal year 1997 : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on H.R. 3675, an act making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes"

See other formats


\Vt(^ S. Hrg. 104-671, Pt. 1 

^^ Senate Hearings 

Before the Committee on Appropriations 



1 ll\? 6/2:S. HRG, 104-671/ 
PT.l 

irtnent of Transportation and Re.. 



Department of 

Transportation and Related 

Agencies Appropriations 




Fiscal Year X 997 
1 Q/4''^ CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 

H.R. 3675 



PART 1 (Pages 1-783) 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 



msmr 

JAN2', /gg; 
''mm,, pry. 



S. Hrg. 104-671, Pt. 1 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND REUT- 
ED AGENCIES APPROPRUVTIONS FOR FISCAL 
YEAR 1997 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
ON 

H.R. 3675 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- 
PORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 



PART 1 (Pages 1-783) 

Department of Transportation 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 




U.S. GON'ERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
WASHINGTON : 1996 



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office. Washington, DC 20402 
ISBN 0-16-053791-6 



COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon, Chairman 
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DANIEL K INOUYE, Hawaii 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas 

MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

CONNIE MACK, Florida TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director 
Mark Van de Water, Deputy Staff Director 
James H. English, Minority Staff Director 



Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies 

MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon, Chairman 
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

SLADE GORTON, Washington BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada 

Professional Staff 
Patrick J. McCann 
Anne M. Miano 
Joyce C. Rose 
Peter Rogoff (Minority) 

(II) 



CONTENTS 



Tuesday, March 26, 1996 

Page 
Department of Transportation: Office of the Secretary 1 

Thursday, May 2, 1996 
Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration 169 

Thursday, May 9, 1996 
Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration 389 

Thursday, May 16, 1996 

Department of Transportation: U.S. Coast Guard 601 

(III) 



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RE- 
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
FISCAL YEAR 1997 



THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1996 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 

Washington, DC. 
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark O. Hatfield (chairman) presid- 
ing. 

Present: Senators Hatfield, Domenici, Bond, Gorton, Lautenberg, 
and Byrd. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

statement of hon. federico pena, secretary of transpor- 
TATION 

accompanied by LOUISE FRANKEL STOLL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 
budget and PROGRAMS/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

opening REMARKS 

Senator Hatfield. The committee meeting will come to order. 

Senator Lautenberg, the ranking member of our committee, is 
temporarily delayed and we shall proceed with the opening state- 
ments. 

Senator Byrd, I am pleased to not only call this subcommittee 
meeting to order, but it is the first hearing for 1997, as you know, 
for the Department of Transportation budget proposal. It is a pleas- 
ure to welcome Secretary Pefia who is here to present and discuss 
his Department's request. 

I must say, Mr. Secretary, that I have found all the secretaries 
to be most cooperative in the appropriations process. I think I have 
to give sort of a special nod to you because this, after all, is the 
committee I am privileged to preside over as the subcommittee 
chairman. We have had many activities that have brought us to- 
gether over the years, and it has been a great pleasure to work 
with you. 

I happened to run into Andy Card last night at a function. I was 
telling him that you were going to be here this morning, and he 
said to give you his best regards. I want you to know that you are 
held in high esteem in all areas in which I have ever had any busi- 
ness. 

(1) 



The administration has requested a total of slightly more than 
$37 billion for the Department of Transportation programs under 
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. This total is nigher than the 
fiscal year 1996 enacted level, and the committee, as you know, has 
not yet received its 602(a) allocation for fiscal year 1997 which is 
necessary before we proceed with the individual 602(b) allocations 
to each subcommittee. 

It should be pointed out, however, that in the current budgetary 
and political climate, it can be expected that the 1997 level will be 
less than what was available in 1996, but we will still be asked to 
fund many vital programs, albeit with less resources available to 
us. 

Today is the Secretary's second appearance before this sub- 
committee's Republican majority, and I expect and hope that in the 
development of the 1997 transportation budget, we will again be 
able to work in a bipartisan fashion as we have done in the past 
under either Democratic or Republican majorities. I have found 
that our committee has functioned on a most, I think, professional 
bipartisan basis. I am very proud of the record of the Appropria- 
tions Committee over the many years I have served on it. Of 
course, the former chairman. Senator Byrd, and the former sub- 
committee chairman. Senator Lautenberg, have extended the same 
kind of bipartisanship when they were a part of the Democratic 
majority. 

Fortunately, we moved our bill for 1996 through in a very expedi- 
tious way. I believe we were the third bill that was signed into law 
of the 13 appropriations bills, and maybe we can even better that 
record this year. Since we just completed the CR yesterday, we 
hopefully have that put to rest. I am awfully happy that the trans- 
portation bill was not there as unfinished business. 

CREATIVE FINANCING 

I am encouraged that the Department is doing what it can in the 
area of creative financing. I believe that with the prospect of re- 
duced Federal resources, we need to do all we can to get the maxi- 
mum leverage on what is available. I am proud to have been the 
original author of the State Infrastructure Bank Program which 
was eventually authorized in the National Highway System bill. 

I am also particularly proud that Oregon was one of the eight 
States originally chosen to participate in that program, and I be- 
lieve that it is a good example of being creative and challenges 
State and local governments to be creative rather than approaching 
the Department and this subcommittee with their hands held out, 
though many do have legitimate requests for infrastructure im- 
provements. 

It does bother me that when this subcommittee earmarks funds 
within a specific program or category, people quickly rise to call 
those earmarks pork, regardless of the project or activity des- 
ignated as the recipient. Congress is, unfortunately, stepping back 
from its responsibilities in this area. This is particularly disturbing 
since the projects or activities that are requested or earmarked by 
the administration are not considered pork by the popular press 
and pundits. Yet, congressional initiatives are so labeled. Sh5dng 
away from responding to our constituents' needs and requests in 



these areas, in conjunction with the line item veto that is to take 
effect in January 1997, severely ties the hands of Congress and di- 
minishes our ability to be an equal partner in these matters of fi- 
nance with the executive branch. The vote on the line item veto I 
believe tips the balance of power toward the executive branch. 

People should read the recent article in Time magazine entitled 
"Clinton's Stealth Campaign." In the April 22 Time article, which 
describes how the President travels the country telling voters how 
much Federal moneys have been approved on their behalf, nine 
major projects are listed, five of which are in the transportation 
sector. It is very important that this subcommittee continue to 
carefully scrutinize any and all of the administration's requests 
and not back down in asserting itself and its priorities when and 
where it sees fit. To do any less, I believe, is an abdication of the 
responsibilities of the office of Senator and forsakes the reasons 
why we are sent here. 

This subcommittee has long operated, as I have said before and 
will continue to repeat, in a bipartisan fashion, and we will con- 
tinue to do so as long as I am subcommittee chairman. The dif- 
ferences we have had with the administration have never been 
strictly along party lines. Many of the most difficult decisions we 
have faced have been large States versus small States or urban 
versus rural areas needs, but we will continue to address all our 
constituents' needs to the best of our ability with limited resources. 

Mr. Secretary, I welcome you and I am very happy that you are 
here this morning and look forward to hearing your testimony on 
the fiscal year 1997 budget request. 

First I ask whether the subcommittee's ranking member and 
former chairman, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, would 
like to make an opening statement before we hear the Secretary's 
testimony and Senator Byrd or other members who may wish to 
make opening statements. Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to make note of the fact that here I sit between two of 
the most senior, experienced, and respected Members of the U.S. 
Senate. I call attention to that because the transportation subject 
is one that brings us together. Each of these Senators has choices 
as to which of the subcommittees, which of the portfolios they are 
going to pay attention to. I was particularly flattered when Senator 
Hatfield chose to chair this subcommittee. By no means was it an 
ode to Frank Lautenberg, but it sure raised the level of respect 
that we got. 

I do not want to wax sentimental because we will stay here all 
day, but Mark Hatfield, you never should have done it. 

The fact is that transportation, the whole infrastructure subject, 
resonates through every part of our society, regardless of State, 
rural, urbanized, otherwise. When Senator Byrd, who has paid so 
much attention to transportation, respecting the various modes, 
but highlighting, as he always has, and I am sure always will, the 
fact that for some States it is highways, for some States it is more 
mass transit, and for many it is a combination of both. The flexibil- 
ity that we all worked so hard to get into the program will work 



well for us, especially as we approach these days with yet again too 
limited funds. But now at least we can look at a budget, Mr. Sec- 
retary, that has some prospects for fulfilling our needs. 

The budget request that we have in front of us for fiscal year 
1997 is a very good attempt to satisfy the needs of the country even 
as we ramp down our budget expenditures. It recognizes the impor- 
tance of necessary investments in our transportation infrastruc- 
ture, and strikes a good balance in addressing the need for invest- 
ments in all modes of transportation. 

The budget this year avoids deep cuts in transportation spend- 
ing, recommending an overall freeze. With continued adequate in- 
vestment in transportation, we can keep pace with our Nation's 
transportation requirements. The Secretary must be commended 
for finding ways to increase transportation investment even within 
the constraints of a funding freeze. The administration's budget in- 
deed seeks to do more with less by emphasizing innovative financ- 
ing techniques to leverage private sector investment in transpor- 
tation. 

The fiscal year 1997 Clinton transportation budget gives appro- 
priate attention and resources to transit and intercity rail transpor- 
tation. It recognizes, as I earlier mentioned, that in many areas of 
the country, mass transit is essential to ease congestion, to reduce 
travel times, to increase productivity, and to help to clean our air. 

For my State, New Jersey, the most densely populated State in 
the Nation, the budget includes funding commitments totaling 
more than $115 million for items like the Secaucus Transfer and 
the Hudson-Bergen Waterfront projects. 

I also support the administration's request for increased invest- 
ments in Aintrak's Northeast corridor to bring the state-of-the-art 
rail service to the entire region. 

The Secretary has proposed an increase in funding for intelligent 
transportation systems [ITS] recognizing that investments must be 
made to get more productivity out of our existing highway infra- 
structure. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that at the conclusion of the coming budg- 
et debates in Congress, adequate resources are made available to 
this subcommittee so we can match these and other commitments 
made by the Secretary in his budget request. 

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 

The Secretary's testimony will place appropriate priority on the 
Department's critical role in ensuring safety in all transportation 
modes, and I particularly want to focus on those things as we de- 
velop our final spending plan for the year. I want to call attention 
to two areas in particular now: safety on our highways and on our 
rail lines, where frankly I believe we can do better. 

Just 2 months ago, we experienced two tragic rail accidents in 
a 7-day period: one in my home State of New Jersey and the other 
in Maryland. Together these two tragedies resulted in 14 fatalities 
and hundreds of injuries. This morning I hope, Mr. Secretary, that 
we will have a chance to talk about additional measures that your 
Department is taking to ensure the safety of all rail passengers. 

And I emphasize rail passenger service in this country is a very 
safe way to travel, but that does not mean that we should not work 



to make it safer, to have all of the people who use it feel more con- 
fident about the ride that they take, just like it is with air. We 
keep on working to improve our aviation system, to improve safety, 
to reduce the reliance on human intervention. It is a very, very safe 
system but we always want to do better. 

I would like to discuss with you your views on legislation that 
I have already introduced to improve rail safety. 

The Secretary in his formal opening statement states that he is 
alarmed by the increase in highway deaths experienced in these 
past 3 years. I share your alarm. This morning I would especially 
like to focus on the increased highway deaths which have been ex- 
perienced in just the last 5 months. 

Mine was one of the few votes in the Senate opposing the pas- 
sage of the National Highway System bill. I strongly supported 
congressional approval of the National Highway System, but I 
thought the bill brought before the Senate was reckless in that it 
went too far in repealing many of the Federal safety mandates per- 
taining to highway travel. Since enactment of that bill, we have 
seen 21 States increase their speed limits. Preliminary data from 
California appears to point up the increase in highway carnage 
that will surely result from this ill-advised part of the legislation. 

I am also concerned that the Transportation Department is be- 
hind schedule, Mr. Secretary, in implementing its own action plan 
which was designed to minimize the increase in highway fatalities 
that will result from this bill. 

Once it becomes clear that the repeal of the 55-mile-per-hour 
speed limit results in increased deaths on our highways, I hope 
that the Congress will review the change in the national maximum 
speed limit. In the interim, I hope that costs associated with repeal 
of 55 can, to some degree, be mitigated by aggressive efforts on the 
part of the Department of Transportation. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Byrd, do you have any opening statement? 

Senator Byrd. No; thank you very much. 

Senator Hatfield. We are joined by Senator CJorton. Do you 
have any opening statement? 

Senator Gorton. No opening statement. 

Senator Hatfield. Senator Bond. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOND 

Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Very briefly I extend my thanks to Secretary Pen a by letting you 
know that we appreciate very much the assistance that Adminis- 
trator Slater and Deputy Administrator Jane Garvey and Jack 
Basso from Federal Highways have provided us on some very, very 
important bridge issues in the State of Missouri. With the floods 
of 1993 and 1995, we were using a lot of ferries to get back and 
forth across the rivers, not very conducive to high-speed highway 
travel. These individuals on your staff have provided us not only 
their knowledge, but their technical assistance and their coopera- 
tion. We are grateful for that because we have some real problems. 



6 

Bridge issues are very, very important to Missouri. We have 32 
bridges over the Missouri, 16 over the Mississippi, and a lot of 
those were out of action. I appreciate your working with us. 

There are a number of other needs that we will be addressing in 
this committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I have some questions for Secretary 
Peiia perhaps for the record, but I do appreciate your assistance, 
Mr. Secretary. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you. Senator Bond. 

Mr. Secretary, we are happy to have you here and you may pro- 
ceed, as you wish, to highlight or summarize. Your entire state- 
ment will be placed in the record. 

We are happy to welcome also Ms. Louise StoU, the Assistant 
Secretary, this morning who is accompanying you. We welcome any 
remarks or comments that you wish to make at some point in time. 
Mr. Secretary. 

REMARKS BY SECRETARY PENA 

Secretary Pena. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and mem- 
bers of the subcommittee. Let me formally submit my testimony for 
the record, and I have an abbreviated statement that I would like 
to make this morning, Mr. Chairman. 

But if I might, first, Mr. Chairman, on personal privilege, with 
your permission, say, perhaps echoing the comments that you made 
at the beginning of the hearing this morning that today may be our 
last formal session together in this context. I would like to say to 
you, Mr. Chairman, that it has been a pleasure working with you 
over the last several years. Everyone in the Department of Trans- 
portation, I believe, shares my view that we have had a very con- 
structive relationship. Wherever there have been differences, they 
have been professional and they have been objective. 

We have, I think, succeeded because of your leadership in not al- 
lowing certain issues to distract us from moving the agenda for- 
ward. The result of that, I think, was the fact that, as you said ear- 
lier, our appropriations bill was passed early for the 1996 fiscal 
year and signed by the President and we did not have the discom- 
forts of other Departments. So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and 
other members of the subcommittee for the extraordinary work and 
the cooperation that we have shared together the last several 
years. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you. 

Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman and members, this morning let 
me say that our budget is in the amount of $37.54 billion. I will 
not review the budget in its entirety but let me focus on at least 
three areas where I think I would like to place emphasis. First is 
in the area of the investment in infrastructure. Second is our com- 
mitment to safety, and third is our commitment to technology. Let 
me address those. 

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT 

With respect to infrastructure investment, we are proposing 
$24.9 billion in infrastructure that our citizens use. Obviously, if 
we are to continue to be the world's leading competitor, we must 
continue to have the safest, most efficient, and most productive 



transportation infrastructure and system in a highly globally com- 
petitive environment. This budget, I believe, does that, at the same 
time respecting the need for all of us to find a way to ultimately 
eliminate the deficit in a reasonable period of time. 

Second, we have attempted to leverage whatever limited dollars 
we have at the Federal level and to form more creative partner- 
ships with our State partners, with our city and county partners, 
and with the public sector by launching a massive, innovative fi- 
nancing efibrt. In the last 2 years, we have been able to finance $4 
billion of transportation projects that otherwise would not have 
been financed, would not have become viable but for the fact that 
we reviewed our old rules, changed them, became creative, and 
worked very closely with our partners. This morning Senator Bond 
referenced some bridge projects in his State which are a reflection 
of the kind of creative relationship we have developed with the 
States. 

STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANKS 

We have built on that experience, Mr. Chairman, with your 
strong support, with the creation of the State infrastructure banks. 
As you said earlier, we were able, with your leadership, to have the 
permission to establish 10 State infrastructure banks. We have al- 
ready identified eight States that will have those infrastructure 
banks. We have two more to identify. We are hoping we can do 
that in the next few weeks. But the eight States that are going to 
participate in the first round are Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. 

The point I want to make about the infrastructure banks, Mr. 
Chairman, is that while they are a new concept, because of the 2 
prior years of experience we had with innovative finance, the 
States themselves have built up the capacity to put in new sys- 
tems, new financings, new structures which invite the private sec- 
tor to participate and which will allow them to leverage our Fed- 
eral dollars in ways we have not even dreamed of. 

For example, it is our estimate that of the $4 billion we lever- 
aged in the last 2 years across the Nation, close to $1 billion of that 
$4 billion came from the private sector, which otherwise would not 
have been invited or facilitated to make those investments but for 
this creativity. So, we are very hopeful that the infrastructure 
banks we have already approved will give us the same kind of le- 
verage, perhaps leveraging for every dollar we put into those banks 
two, three, four, or five other dollars. 

Second, Mr. Chairman, in addition to the creativity and the 
leveraging, we have tried to ensure that our investments in our in- 
frastructure ultimately help people. What we do is more than sim- 
ply investing in concrete or steel. We are about improving the qual- 
ity of life for all Americans. Transit investment is part of that in- 
vestment in the quality of life for Americans. Many millions of 
Americans depend on transit. 

Let me give you one statistic which I think might illuminate our 
view of how we look at transit. Historically, perhaps some have 
looked at transit as primarily an inner-city, urban investment. It 
has changed in its complexity and its impact. The number of work- 
ers commuting from suburban homes to central city jobs has nearly 



8 

doubled since 1970, and transit use for these trips, suburban to 
inner city, has increased 53 percent. So, investment in transit is 
now a very broad based investment affecting millions of Americans 
throughout broad metropolitan communities and not just an invest- 
ment in the inner city. 

From 1984 to 1994 alone, annual rail transit patronage increased 
by 2.9 billion passenger miles or 18 percent. 

So, to ensure that we continue to invest in transit and to have 
it available for all these riders, and in order to ensure we continue 
to reduce the highway congestion, we are proposing $500 million 
for transit operating assistance which, as you know, is a 25-percent 
increase over the $400 million we invested last year. 

We ask the subcommittee to focus very specifically on this re- 
quest because in the broad scheme of things, $100 million may not 
appear at least by some measure to be a lot, but we think the bang 
that it brings is very significant in helping millions of Americans. 

SAFETY 

The next issue this budget addresses, Mr. Chairman and mem- 
bers of the subcommittee, is safety. I think everyone knows that 
safety has been our highest priority. It will always be our highest 
priority. Let me refer specifically to our concern about safety on our 
highways. 

I make this point, Mr. Chairman and members, because it seems 
that the media in particular focuses on certain safety problems. 
Whenever we have, for example, an airplane accident which is 
tragic, which is horrible — I have been to too many of those sites al- 
ready — there is tremendous concern on the part of the public about 
those accidents. Yet, we have over 40,000 people dying on our high- 
ways every year — 40,000 people dying on our highways every year. 

It was not but a few years ago that we had 54,000 people dying 
on our highways, and because of the hard work of many people, we 
got those deaths down to about 39,000 to 40,000. However, in the 
last 3 years, we have seen an increase in the number of fatalities 
on our highways, and we are now going in the wrong direction. We 
are now exceeding the 40,000 deaths that we had seen bottom out 
2 or 3 years ago, and I believe we have to focus on this very real 
American tragedy in a direct way and not simply assume that as 
we travel across our country, that we will not be affected by high- 
way fatalities. 

That is why we are recommending in the budget that we increase 
by sixfold our investment in safe communities. The safe community 
program is a way in which we want to encourage people at the 
local level to develop their own safety strategies which are tailor 
made, which reflect the particular conditions and problems in each 
community, and which will, we think, help to reduce these highway 
fatalities. We are asking for $28.2 million in that regard. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration grant pro- 
gram will now empower those communities to identify their auto 
crash injury problems, develop their own solutions, and evaluate 
their successes and countermeasures. Overall for the Department 
for 1997, we are proposing $2.6 billion in direct safety programs, 
an 8-percent increase over this year. 



9 

In the FAA, for example, where safety and zero accidents is our 
goal, we are investing more in that area. We are asking for 250 ad- 
ditional controllers for 1997, 134 additional maintenance techni- 
cians to help protect against equipment outages, and 258 addi- 
tional safety inspectors and aircraft certification personnel. 

So, safety is a high priority in this budget. 

TECHNOLOGY 

The other area, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommit- 
tee, is technology. I believe that we must aggressively invest in 
technology to maximize the capacity and the efficiency of an al- 
ready efficient transportation system. 

In 1997 we are proposing $1.60 billion for research and tech- 
nology, a 24-percent increase over 1996. A major feature of this in- 
vestment is $337 million for further development of the intelligent 
transportation system. Americans are frustrated with the conges- 
tion and delays they face throughout our metropolitan commu- 
nities. We have launched a national program called Operation 
Time Saver in which we are encouraging the 75 largest metropoli- 
tan communities in the country to invest in technology which we 
believe will reduce congestion and wasted time by at least 15 per- 
cent over a 10-year period. 

So, we think that investment in technology for every dollar that 
is invested will give us far greater gains in efficiency and capacity 
than other options that we have available to us in the context of 
a very tight budget. 

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY 

Last, Mr. Chairman and members, let me talk about efficiency. 
The President has said a number of times that we cannot simply 
look to the Government to solve all of our problems. In the Depart- 
ment of Transportation, we have already implemented more than 
one-half of the "National Performance Review's" recommendations. 

We took a major step toward efficiency last month when, under 
the authority granted oy this subcommittee in our appropriations 
bill last year, and with the leadership of the Vice President and the 
FAA Administrator, Mr. Hinson, we announced the new personnel 
and procurement rules which were permitted by this committee. At 
long last we can have a personnel system which allows us to place 
people where we need them, pay them what they deserve, deal 
with overly stressful environments throughout the aviation system, 
and equally importantly, purchase off-the-shelf equipment and in- 
stall new technology on a timely basis. 

We believe that we will be able to reduce the time it takes to 
bring in new technology by one-half, and we believe that we will 
be able to reduce the time it takes to hire someone from 7 months 
to but a few weeks. These kinds of changes are what has been 
making it very difficult in the past for the FAA to be as efficient 
as it possibly can be. 

So, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, let me con- 
clude my brief opening remarks by simply saying to you that we 
very much appreciate your strong support in the past. We look for- 
ward to working with you and the members for the 1997 budget 
to once again respond to the needs of the American people. I think 



10 

we have worked very well together and we look forward to continu- 
ing the investments in infrastructure, in safety, and technology and 
improving the quality of life for all Americans. 
Thank you very much. 

PREPARED STATEMENT 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We 
have your complete statement, and it will be made part of the 
record. 

[The statement follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Federico Pena 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before 
you to discuss the President's fiscal year 1997 budget proposals for the Department 
of Transportation. We appreciate your help in enacting the DOT Fiscal Year 1996 
Appropriations Act which was signed by the President in November. Those who de- 
pend on the Department of Transportation for grants and services have not felt the 
sort of disruption that has adversely affected so many other departments and vital 
progranis. I particularly would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Hatfield 
for his leadership in providing us the tools for streamlining and reinventing the De- 
partment. I look forward to continuing this successful working relationship with this 
Subcommittee. 

The President's fiscal year 1997 Budget for the Federal government achieves two 
key objectives: balancing the budget in seven years, and maintaining our commit- 
ments to economic growth while we invest in the Nation. I am pleased to present 
this budget to you because it is the right balance between investment in the Nation 
and addressing the budget deficit. 

Our budget features strategic investments in infrastructure, safety, and tech- 
nology. And it includes a major new innovative finance measure to stretch the Fed- 
eral dollar by involving resources both in the public and private sector. This is an 
essential part of future transportation investment. 

By making these strategic investments, the President's budget will continue to 
help grow our economy and improve the quality of life for all Americans. 

At the same time, the President's budget calls for a smaller government — one that 
works better, costs less, and puts us on the path to developing the transportation 
systems this country needs to flourish in the 21st century. 

The budget we have proposed to Congress totals $37.54 billion for transportation 
programs, including those of the Maritime Administration, which are under the ju- 
risdiction of another Subcommittee. That total is slightly higher than the current 
year. Our proposal keeps the level of infrastructure investment at about $2 billion 
above the fiscal year 1993 level. That has been possible because of the President's 
support for infrastructure investment and because of the support of this Subcommit- 
tee and your colleagues in the House. 

infrastructure investment 

Investing in transportation is important for America. Efficient, safe, and cost-ef- 
fective transportation is vital to any prosperous nation, especially in a globally com- 
petitive economy, and the prosperous nations of the world invest heavily in trans- 
portation infrastructure and facilities. While transportation costs in America have 
been coming down in recent years, they are still a major component in the cost of 
doing business. 

The fiscal year 1997 Budget continues this Administration's record of investment: 
we propose $24.9 billion in new investment in infrastructure the public uses in fiscal 
year 1997. 

As part of this strategic investment, we propose: $19.3 billion for highway pro- 
grams, $3.65 billion for transit capital, $1.35 billion for airport capital improvement 
grants, and $587 million for Amtrak and the Northeast Corridor capital programs. 

We're proposing $200 million for the Northeast Corridor to upgrade the New 
Haven to Boston Amtrak segment for high-speed service and to improve deterio- 
rated systems between Washington and New York City. The northend electrification 
work will begin this spring. We are also requesting $80 million for the acquisition 
of high-speed trains and related maintenance facilities for the Northeast Corridor. 
The $800 million in FTA's budget for transit New Start projects will fund 12 
projects in which we already have commitments. And it will provide funds for new 



11 

Full Funding Grant Agreements we intend to offer for projects in San Francisco, 
Sacramento, Denver, St. Louis, and northern New Jersey. 

INNOVATIVE FINANCE 

We are always challenged to find new and better ways to meet our goals. Trans- 
portation is financed through a complex partnership of the Federal government, the 
States, local communities, and the private sector. The Federal government alone 
cannot meet all our transportation investment needs. 

With President Clinton's support, we developed a new Partnership for Transpor- 
tation Investment to find new ways to supplement Federal funds with private in- 
vestment. We want to stretch the Federal dollar and invest it wisely. We also cut 
complex application procedures and other red tape. As a result, to date, 74 projects 
in 35 States with a total value exceeding $4 billion are now underway. These 
projects are under construction far sooner than if they had waited to accumulate 
funds fi"om Federal grants. Thus, they will cost less and will bring benefits to the 
economy much sooner. 

A more recent example of innovative financing is the President's Budget request 
of $59 million for the Alameda Corridor project in the Los Angeles area. This 
multimodal project shows the value that Federal funds provide in leveraging other 

f)ublic and private investment. The total cost of this project is estimated at $1.9 bil- 
ion. The $59 million will support $400 million in direct loan authority, a portion 
of the capital needed to complete the project. Bond proceeds and equity funding 
from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the other sources of funds. The 
Federal loan will allow construction of the project to continue until a major bond 
sale can be completed — probably in 1997 or 1998. It will also give bond investors 
assurance that the project will have sufficient capital to bring the project to comple- 
tion. The loan will be repaid from revenues once the project is completed. The Ad- 
ministration strongly supports this type of innovative financing as a protot5T)e for 
increasing infrastructure investment. 

STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANKS 

The National Highway System Designation Act enacted late last year provided 
authority to establish ten pilot State Infrastructure Banks. This Subcommittee 
played a particularly important role in achieving that outcome, and I want to ex- 
press my appreciation to you for that. 

These "SIB's," as they are called, are an important new tool to leverage Federal 
dollars. They allow States to create credit enhancement mechanisms and to support 
bond-financed programs that will bring more public and private investment into in- 
frastructure improvement. As a result, they will accelerate construction schedules. 
We have announced the first eight States selected to participate in the pilot pro- 
gram — ^Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Vir- 
ginia. I expect to announce the remaining two winners next month. 

We want to build on the SIB approach. The fiscal year 1997 budget includes $250 
million, above tlie core Federal highway program, to help capitalize SIB's. 

INVESTMENTS FOR PEOPLE 

The ultimate success of any transportation system is measured by the service it 
provides to people. Many Americans depend on transit for their daily travel — urban 
dwellers for whom transit may be the mode of choice for most trips, as well as sub- 
urbanites who may use it primarily to travel between home and work. The number 
of workers commuting from suburban homes to central city jobs has nearly doubled 
since 1970, and transit use for these trips has increased 53 percent. From 1984 to 
1994 alone, annual rail transit patronage increased by 2.9 billion passenger-miles, 
or 18 percent. Recent analysis done for" FTA has shown that transit significantlv im- 
proves the overall point-to-point speed of travel for both transit riders and highway 
users in severely congested urban travel corridors in cities such as Boston, Atlanta, 
Chicago, and San Francisco. 

To help ensure that transit is available to all these riders and to preserve the con- 
gestion reduction benefits of transit for highway users in congested areas, we are 
proposing $500 million in transit operating assistance — 25 percent more than the 
$400 million Congress provided this year in this vital program. 

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 

America demands and deserves an efficient and a safe transportation system. 
Safety is always our number one priority. Recent events in the Washington area and 
around the country remind us that there is yet more to be done. 



12 

In fact, the Nation, from one end to the other, has made great progress over the 
past several decades in improving transportation safetv. Transportation accidents, 
injuries, and fatalities occur mainly on our highways where people drive 6V2 billion 
miles every day. But our highways can be deadly: 94 percent of transportation fa- 
talities occur in highway crashes. 

The Transportation Department and many public groups have for years worked 
hard to reduce injuries and deaths on the highways. We have moved from over 
54,600 highway fatalities in 1972 to a low of 39,250 in 1992. But we are alarmed 
by the increase in highway deaths in the past three years. In light of that increase, 
we must do more, and we must look for new solutions. Because the Congress has 
delegated much safety responsibility to the States and because we believe that the 
key to improving highway safetv is community involvement, we are expanding our 
Safe Communities program, with a proposed sixfold increase — to $28.2 million. This 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration grant program empowers commu- 
nities to identifv their auto crash injury problems, develop solutions, and evaluate 
the success of their countermeasures. For total NHTSA spending, we propose a 27 
percent increase over fiscal year 1996 — to $352 million. 

Overall for the Department, for fiscal year 1997, we propose $2.6 billion in total 
direct safety programs — an 8 percent increase over this year. We are increasing the 
work force in FAA that helps make our aviation system the safest in the world: 250 
additional controllers in fiscal year 1997, 134 additional maintenance technicians to 
help protect against equipment outages, and 258 additional aviation safety inspec- 
tors and aircraft certification personnel. We're funding the new Rail Safety Advisory 
Committee — a forum to bring together rail labor, management, and other stakehold- 
ers to expedite and improve safety rulemaking by developing a consensus on prior- 
ities and on the substance of rules. 

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

We at the Transportation Department are aggressively pursuing technological ad- 
vances and putting them in the field to maximize the safety and economic returns 
of our past transportation investments. Building better roads, facilities, and equip- 
ment, and managing more effectively what we already have means a more efficient 
transportation system. 

For fiscal year 1997, the President proposes to increase DOT Research and Tech- 
nology funding to $1.06 billion, a 24 percent increase over fiscal year 1996. 

A maior feature of this research budget is $337 million for further development 
of Intelligent Transportation Systems. Americans are frustrated at the increasing 
congestion they face each day on our Nation's highways and we are doing something 
about it. Operation Timesaver encourages States and localities to install fully inte- 
grated Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure (ITI) in 75 of the largest metropoli- 
tan areas. It promises to cut the travel time of commuters in these areas by at least 
15 percent. We have requested more than $100 million in fiscal year 1997 to support 
ITI model deployment, and training, technical assistance and outreach activities in 
support of Operation Timesaver. Investment in ITS infrastructure is extremely cost- 
effective: investments of hundreds of millions of dollars over the next ten years will 
result in savings of tens of billions of dollars a year in congestion avoided when the 
new technology is fully in place. ITS also provides new opportunities to improve 
traffic safety. 

MODAL BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 

I would like to review highlights of the budget requests for our individual Operat- 
ing Administrations, recognizing that some of our Administrators will be appearing 
before this Subcommittee in the weeks ahead. 

Federal Highway Administration 

For the Federal Highway Administration, the Department requests a Federal-aid 
obligation limitation of $17.7 billion. The obligation limitation we propose is essen- 
tially the same as that enacted in fiscal year 1996. In order to maintain the obliga- 
tion limitation on the core programs at the fiscal year 1996 level and permit all 
States to benefit, we also call for an obligation limitation on demonstration projects. 

Lastly, the Department is requesting $85 million for the Motor Carrier Safety 
Grant program, a 10 percent increase over fiscal year 1996. This increase will allow 
us to improve safety inspections in the 10 States with the highest truck accident 
rates. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

For the highway traffic safety programs carried out by NHTSA, we propose in- 
creases in both the grant and operations programs. Highway traffic safety grants 



13 

would increase by $38.5 million, to $193.6 million in fiscal year 1997. I've already 
discussed the main reason for this increase, which is the $28 million proposed for 
the safe communities grant program, up $24 million over the current year. 

NHTSA's safety operations and research budget is proposed at $158 million, up 
$36 million from this year. Of this, $10.5 million is proposed for the driving simula- 
tor; $5 million for the President's Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle (PNGV) 
program, to assure that safety keeps pace with fuel efficiency in the new fleet; and 
$11 million for research and analysis of the characteristics and causes of automobile 
crashes, both on the vehicle and the passenger. 

Federal Transit Administration 

For the Federal Transit Administration, I've already talked about transit new 
starts and our proposed increase in operating assistance. We also propose that tran- 
sit capital formula grants remain at the fiscal year 1996 level of $1.65 billion and 
that discretionary funding for projects other than new starts total $999 million 
($725 million for rail modernization, which helps meet the $13 billion in backlog 
needs, and $274 million for bus to help meet the requirements of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act). For the Washington Metro, we propose $200 million, which 
will keep WMATA's fast-track construction on schedule to finish the 103-mile Metro 
system by the year 2001. 

Federal Railroad Administration 

For programs administered by the Federal Railroad Administration, we include 
$296 million for Amtrak capital; $342 million for Amtrak operating assistance; $200 
million for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program (up from this year's $115 
million); and $80 million, as mentioned earlier, in new dedicated funding for the ac- 
quisition of high speed trainsets and maintenance facilities. 

For railroad programs other than Amtrak, we propose $26.5 million for the next 
generation high speed rail program, up $2 million from fiscal year 1996. Our rail- 
road safety programs are proposed at $51.9 million, up $2.2 million from fiscal year 
1996. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

For the Federal Aviation Administration, we propose $4.9 billion for FAA oper- 
ations, including $150 million derived from new user fees. FAA's operating budget 
is increased 6 percent over fiscal year 1996. The operations level includes increased 
staffing in several critical safety areas: controllers (up by 250), safety and certifi- 
cation inspectors (up by 258), and field maintenance personnel (up by 134). For FAA 
facilities and equipment, we propose $1.8 billion, about $100 million below fiscal 
year 1996. The fiscal year 1997 Budget includes $164 million for Display System 
Replacement, $41 million for the Oceanic Automation System to allow free flight 
across the oceans, and $74 million for the GPS-based Wide Area Augmentation Sys- 
tem. The budget also includes $1.35 billion for airport grants. 

Coast Guard 

For the Coast Guard, we propose fiinding at about the same levels as fiscal year 
1996: $2.6 billion for operations, a 2.4 percent increase over fiscal year 1996; $412 
million for capital investments; and $20 million for research. The request includes 
an increase of $6 million for Coast Guard's drug interdiction efforts for additional 
aircraft and cutter patrol hours, and for port security. $118 million of the Coast 
Guard total budget is proposed to be funded from the Defense budget category, and 
$20 million of the capital funding is anticipated from the sale of Coast Guard prop- 
erty in Wildwood, New Jersey 

Research and Special Programs Administration 

Funding for the Research and SpeciaKPrograms Administration is proposed at 
$62 million, a $7 million increase over fiscal year 1996. Of the proposed increase, 
$3 million is for pipeline safety and $4 million is to support research on multi-modal 
transportation issues and applications. 

Other 

We are also proposing $21.9 million for the "Essential Air Service" program in fis- 
cal year 1997, with provisions to assure that Federal resources are only being used 
where there is a genuine need. Funding for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Develop- 
ment Corporation is proposed at $10 million, with the SLSDC proposed for conver- 
sion to a performance-based organization. 

Lastly, funding for a new entity in the Department of Transportation, the Surface 
Transportation Board, is proposed at $15.3 milUon, to be totally financed by pro- 
posed user fees. 



14 

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY 

President Clinton has believed from the beginning that bigger government isn't 
the answer to the Nation's problems. Vice President Gore and his National Perform- 
ance Review team, which included Transportation Department participants, pro- 
duced a series of reports with recommendations for changing tiie way government 
works. We have already implemented more liian half of its recommendations. For 
just one example, we are delivering Federal assistance faster than in the past: 
FHWA and FTA are now offering the States and transit agencies "electronic signa- 
ture" on grants, which can cut payment processing time from four days to one. And 
there is the potential to produce savings of up to $5 million per year through this 
program. 

With the leadership of this Subcommittee, we took a major step toward improved 
efficiency late last month. Under authority that you provided in our fiscal year 1996 
Appropriations Act, Vice President Gore, FAA Administrator Hinson and I an- 
nounced the creation of new personnel and acquisition systems that will enable FAA 
to work better and cost less — fundamental goals of President Clinton's National Per- 
formance Review. The reforms draw heavily on "common sense" best practices from 
the private sector and are designed to increase management accountability, speed 
up procedures, and dramatically reduce paperwork throughout the agency. The per- 
sonnel system is designed, for example, to cut the average time for outside hiring 
from seven months to about six weeks, to change premium pay and shift differentia 
policies to pay employees only for hours actually worked, and to cut average time 
to resolve employee grievances and appeals from eight months to three months. The 
FAA will be able, under this new system, to put the right people in the right jobs 
more quickly. 

The new acquisition management system reduces the time and cost of acquiring 
systems and services and makes the acquisition work force highly accountable for 
their decisions. The new system streamlines the competitive process and cuts time 
to award large contracts from 12 months to six, reduces by 50 percent the time from 

' fie' ' ' 



be phased in over time, but we are applying the new acquisition management sys- 
tem to three proOTams immediately: the Operational and Supportability Implemen- 
tation System (OASIS) for Flight Service Automation, the Integrated Terminal 



Weather System (ITWS), and Oceanic Systems. And we estimate that incorporation 
of the new system in these three major procurements will save $200 million in the 
next three years. I offer you and this Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, my congratula- 
tions for your wisdom in including this new authority in our fiscal year 1996 appro- 
priations legislation. I also want to express my thanks for your help in getting 
Chapter 71 of Title 5, U.S.C, relating to union bargaining rights, reapplied to FAA 
in the Continuing Resolution. 

Even though tine Department is doing more this year than it did in 1993, we're 
doing it with fewer people — specifically, some 10,000 fewer by actual head count. We 
expect an additional reduction of more than 600 positions during fiscal year 1997, 
even as we add additional safety staff in FAA. 

SUMMATION 

To sum up, this budget maintains our record of investing more in infrastructure 
to keep our economy growing and pursuing innovative ways to encourage public and 
private partners to play a larger role. It continues investment in technology develop- 
ment and deployment, particularly to address the growing problem of traffic conges- 
tion that frustrates so many Americans. It steps up our efforts to ensure a safe 
transportation system. And it pays for these investments by continued downsizing 
of the Department and improvements in its efficiency. 

This budget represents strategic investment to keep America globally competitive, 
and to save lives. And it also means jobs as we build new projects and support a 
strong economy. 

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Sub- 
committee, for timely passage of this budget for the Department of Transportation. 

This concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to answer the Subcommit- 
tee's questions. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

Senator HATFIELD. I am going to ask Senator Byrd to lead off on 
the questions. Senator Byrd, we are inviting you to start the ques- 
tions. 



15 

Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I compliment Secretary Pena on his statement and on the work 
he is doing, on his leadership that he is providing, on his great 
dedication, and on his knowledge and awareness of the Nation's 
transportation problems. 

He spoke of the need for a highway system that will promote 
competitiveness in a global economy and of the need for safety, the 
fact that we were losing 40,000 people on our highways annually. 

I have been here long enough to have voted for the Interstate 
Highway System. I was in office 17 days earlier than Mr. Eisen- 
hower became President. I have prided myself on having served 
under President Truman, although it was only 17 days. But it was 
under the Eisenhower administration that we began the Interstate 
System, and I point with pride to the fact that I was one who voted 
for it and one who has supported it throughout the years, one who 
has helped to fund it. 

I can say the same with regard to the Appalachian regional high- 
ways. I was here when they were authorized in 1965, 31 years ago. 
I was here when we initiated the Washington metropolitan transit 
system. I helped to get it started. 

I was chairman of this subcommittee a good many years ago. 
Sometimes I wish I had stayed with it. I did not exercise the privi- 
lege as chairman of the full committee of taking this subcommittee 
away from Frank Lautenberg. I did not feel that was right. I was 
very happy with his chairmanship and am indebted to him for his 
good services to the Senate and to the country as chairman of this 
subcommittee. 

I have been proud, of course, to serve with Senator Hatfield over 
the years and also on this subcommittee. 

So, I am deeply rooted in the history of our modern transpor- 
tation system. I was not around when Henry Clay promoted the 
funding of the old national road, the Cumberland Road, but I ap- 
preciate his vision. He advocated the National System in which he 
was very supportive of infrastructure and so on. 

The importance of highways was known by Darius, the first 
Darius, the son of Hystaspes who reigned in Persia from 522 to 485 
B.C. He knew the importance of constructing highways to Sardis 
and to Susa and to Babylon and to Nineveh. The Romans, of 
course, we all remember how they believed in building roads, roads 
that would be almost permanent in nature. Many of us have 
walked on the old Appian Way. There are bridges in the city of 
Rome that have been there 1,000 years, 1,200 years, and so on. 

I was sorry to note that in this year's budget highways suffered. 
I think we must agree that if we are going to have a national 
transportation system, it must be a balanced one and that some 
States have to depend upon highways. 

I know I have been roundly criticized by well-intentioned people 
who really do not know what our situation is. I have been roundly 
criticized when, as chairman, I put a good bit of money into the Ap- 
palachian corridor. We in West Virginia rank 49th in the Nation 
in the amount of funding we receive in Federal aviation dollars. So, 
we do not have major airports. We cannot look to that kind of trav- 
el to meet the needs of our people. 



16 

We rank 44th in the Nation with respect to mass transit. So, we 
do not have mass transit. We have the people mover over at Mor- 
gantown at the West Virginia University, which I was able to help 
many years ago in getting started, but we do not have mass tran- 
sit. We cannot have high-speed trains in West Virginia. We have 
to depend upon highways. That is our life. 

So, I felt I was doing my duty in trying to get funding for the 
Appalachian regional corridors which have been promised to the 
people for more than 30 years. As I say, they were authorized 31 
years ago. 

fflGHWAY FUNDING 

So, it is with consternation that I find that although you are, as 
has been said here, going to operate the freeze on your budget, you 
are able to increase some items in mass transit, but at the expense 
of highways. So, highways are taking a cut in this budget. 

Now, I do not look at that with any unkind feeling toward you. 
I do not have the idea that you are out to cut the Appalachian re- 
gional system, that you want to hurt the people of Appalachia. I 
do not see it that way at all. 

But you have only so much money. You spoke a while ago about 
the need to reduce our deficits. Well, so your budget constitutes a 
freeze. 

This is a rhetorical question, not meant for you to answer. Why 
do we insist on having a big tax giveaway? We want to balance our 
budget, but yet the President talks about the tax cut. The Repub- 
lican leadership in the Congress talks about a bigger tax cut. So, 
we are going to balance the budget. We are going to deal with our 
deficit. We are going to do it in part by cutting highway funding, 
and I cannot understand that rationale. Why do we not back off 
from this big tax cut idea? This is no time to cut taxes. It is folly. 
And put that money into these highways. 

Safety is a very important factor. 

Well, now, Mr. Secretary, I do not want to impose on the time 
of the committee too much. The committee has already been very 
liberal and considerate of me. 

I call your attention to a letter, with which you are already fa- 
miliar, a letter to me by Alice Rivlin dated November 29, 1995, in 
which she says this in part — and I will ask that the letter be in- 
cluded in the record — ^"Assuming current funding levels, the high- 
way corridor system," talking about the Appalachian regional cor- 
ridors, which by the way are not just in West Virginia, but they 
are in 13 States of these United States, "is projected to be finished 
in 2005." Well, that was good news to me. 

[The letter follows:] 



17 

Letter From Alice M. Rivlin 

Executive Office of the President, 
Office of Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC, November 21, 1995. 
Hon. Robert C. Byrd, 
U.S. Senate, 
Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Byrd: I am writing in response to your recent letter to the Presi- 
dent regarding Federal funding for the Appalachian Regional Corridor (ARC) High- 
way System. He has asked that I respond to you. 

As in the past, the President's budget continues to fund highway construction as 
a key component of economic development in the Appalachian region. The Presi- 
dent s fiscal year 1996 budget requested $90 million to continue the ARC highway 
program. Through 1996, the Federal Government will have devoted $4.4 billion to 
this highway. As a result of this funding, 2,300 miles of the corridor (76 percent) 
will either be completed or under construction. Assuming current funding levels, the 
highway corridor system is projected to be finished in 2005, encompassing 3,025 
miles in the region. 

The Appalacnian Regional Commission has completed 887 miles of access road 
projects and has an additional 18 miles under construction. The Commission has 
funded a wide range of other economic development activities, such as vocational 
training, day care centers, business incubators, and water and sewer improvements. 
These activities, in conjunction with highway construction, foster and sustain eco- 
nomic opportunities in the region. 

ThanK you for writing on this important topic. I know how close you are to the 
needs ana concerns of uie people of^Appalachia. Please be assured that the Presi- 
dent and the Federal Government are making good on their commitment to provide 
Appalachians a solid regional infrastructure. 
Sincerely, 

Alice M. Rivlin, 

Director. 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL HIGHWAYS 

Senator Byrd. Then in a letter dated January 19, 1996, in ref- 
erence to the Appalachian regional corridor highway system, she 
says, "I concur with your assessment that it will not be easy to 
complete the highway system within the next decade, although it 
is a goal which the administration will strive to achieve." 

I will ask to have that letter included in the record as well. 

[The letter follows:] 

Letter From Alice M. Rivlin 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC, January 19, 1996. 
Hon. Robert C. Byrd, 
U.S. Senate, 
Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Byrd: This is in response to your December 19, 1995, letter on 
the programs of the Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC], especially the Appa- 
lachian Regional Corridor Highway System, which is now about 75 percent com- 
plete. Your letter indicates skepticism over the likelihood that the highway system 
would be finished in the vear 2005. I concur with your assessment that it will not 
be easy to complete the highway system within the next decade, although it is a 
goal which the administration will strive to achieve. 

Based on discussions we have had with Commission staff, ARC currently esti- 
mates that the Federal share of the cost of completing the Appalachian Regional 
Corridor Highway System is $3.8 billion, taking into account unobligated balances 
from various Federal funding sources. This number includes the repayment of $0.2 
billion in State funded prefinanced projects. 

As you know, recent funding of the highway system has come from four Federal 
sources: 1) unearmarked annual appropriations to the ARC; 2) earmarked annual 
appropriations to the ARC; 3) "demonstration highways" in highway authorization 
legislation; and 4) "demonstration highways" in Transportation appropriations legis- 



18 

lation. Each of these funding sources has contributed between $60-100 million per 
year to funding the highway system over the past six years. 

In order to complete the highway system during tiie next decade, funding from 
all Federal sources would have to total at least $380 million annually. Admittedly, 
given the present state of uncertainty surrounding the Federal budget, this may not 
be easy to achieve. In keeping with the Administration's desire to assist in the Ap- 
palachian region's growth and development, 0MB staff will be meeting with ARC 
and Department of Transportation officials to discuss long range planning for the 
completion of the Appalachian Regional Corridor Highway System. All options will 
be considered, including those you raised with Federal Highway Administrator Rod- 
ney Slater on March 16, 1995, at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. Obvi- 
ously, we, ARC and the Department of Transportation will need to be mindful of 
budget realities as we outline available options. 

I would be happy to discuss these matters with you further. Your leadership and 
concern for the issues affecting Appalachia benefit and serve the region and the na- 
tion. 

Sincerely, 

Alice M. Rivlin, 

Director. 

HIGHWAY SPENDING CUTS 

Senator Byrd. Now, with those two letters in mind, the budget 
request for the Appalachian Regional Commission, while freezing 
funding for the agency at the 1996 level, would cut the level specifi- 
cally made available for highway construction by almost 25 percent 
within Mr. Clinton's fiscal year 1997 budget request for the Depart- 
ment of Transportation. Overall spending for highways is cut by 
$682 million, or 3.4 percent. 

Within the overall cut for highway spending, there is a proposal 
to place a new obligation limitation totaling $630 million on high- 
way demonstration projects that have been funded in previous 
years. Now, this cut to demonstration projects represents the larg- 
est single reduction in funding in the entire DOT budget request. 

So, this cut has provided adequate room for the administration 
to maintain that the budget for DOT is being frozen, but that cut 
makes it possible for the administration to request sizable in- 
creases in transit new starts, $134 million; transit operating assist- 
ance, $100 million; Coast Guard acquisition, $50 million; Amtrak 
capital expenses, $66 million; high-speed train sets for the North- 
east corridor, $80 million. 

So, I have just two or three questions. How was it decided that 
Federal highway spending should take the largest overall percent- 
age cut of all the modes within transportation? Would you please 
answer that question? 

Secretary Pena. Senator, I will try. Let me say this, as I am re- 
viewing all of the data. I trust your data, because you are always 
very good at using the information in the reports that we submit 
to you. 

There is no intention in the budget to make cuts in any particu- 
lar area. What we have tried to do in this budget is to balance the 
overall needs of the Nation. In the area of highways, you are cor- 
rect. There is a reduction, but we do not believe it is a significant 
reduction. Because of the innovative financing projects we lever- 
aged in the last 2 years — primarily highway projects — we were able 
to leverage much more money to expand the budget we had last 
year. 



19 



CREATIVE FINANCING 



We see that continuing for 1997. The State infrastructure banks 
that have been approved are basically going to be primarily high- 
way projects. There may be some there that are transit. We hope 
that some are rail, if the States believe those are their priorities, 
but we think that essentially most of those are going to be highway 
projects. 

So, what we have tried to do is to give some additional tools to 
the States to allow for more investment. We made a slight reduc- 
tion in the general budget we have proposed. You are correct. But 
overall at the end of the year 1997, we think there will actually be 
an increase in total investment in highway dollars throughout the 
country. 

Again, Senator, there is obviously reasonable room to disagree 
with the judgments made in this budget, but what we try to do 
here is to have some balance. For example, we suggest an increase 
in technology because those technological investments will increase 
the efficiency of highways. The new technology in Houston is to im- 
prove the efficiency of their Houston highways. The new Maryland 
technology center is increasing the efficiency of the Maryland high- 
ways. The one in San Antonio is helping those highways, allowing 
for more traffic, eliminating congestion, eliminating incidences, 
making those highways much more operational and more efficient. 

So, we think that in total, if one looks at all the tools that we 
are making available in the budget, we think highways come out 
in a fairly good position. That is perhaps the most responsive an- 
swer I can give you this morning. 

Senator Byrd. Well, Mr. Pena, I have to disagree with you 
strongly. You are reducing the caps. I do not agree with you that 
highways are coming out well or that there is a balanced approach 
here. 

Could you update me on how the administration plans to pursue 
the completion of the Appalachian highway system by the year 
2005 as Mrs. Rivlin indicated? 

APPALACHIAN fflGHWAY SYSTEM 

Secretary Pena. Senator, I am aware of the letter that 0MB Di- 
rector Rivlin sent to you — the two letters that she sent to you, and 
you have included those in the record. 

There is no question. Senator, that in the current budget, par- 
ticularly that to the Appalachian Regional Commission, which is, 
of course, an independent agency, I believe there is only $83 mil- 
lion for the Appalachian highway which is not what I think every- 
one would have liked to have had in that investment since it does 
affect 13 States and it is a multibillion-dollar project. 

But I believe what Ms. Rivlin is indicating is that we are pre- 
pared to sit down with you — I think there have already been one 
or two meetings with your staff— to see what other approaches 
there might be to get this financed over the next 10 years. Cer- 
tainly my Department will be very pleased to sit down with her 
staff and your staff to look at whatever resources we might have 
also. So, I think if we continue to work on this together, we will 
obviously try to reach the goal that Ms. Rivlin has indicated in the 



20 

letter, and that is to try to do our best to address the funding over 
the next 10 years. 

Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that offer of coopera- 
tion. I know you have the best of intentions. 

May I say to my colleagues here that I have nothing against 
mass transit. I have nothing against building our airports and add- 
ing to them. I am all for these. I have never been against them. 
I am for them. But I just have to plead my case with reference to 
Appalachia and the Appalachian highway. 

I have two more questions, Mr. Chairman, or I will confine it to 
one question. 

Do you believe, Mr. Secretary, it would be appropriate for the 
Appalachian highway system to be given a designated account 
within the Federal highway program that grants sufficient contract 
authority to ensure completion of the system in the near future? 

Secretary Pena. Senator, I think that as the Congress reauthor- 
izes ISTEA — and that has to happen next year — I would expect 
that there are certain infrastructure projects that are of national 
significance where they affect a number of States. Some might be 
NAFTA corridors, as some States are beginning to call their strate- 
gic investments. This is one that involves 13 States. 

I would not be surprised — and I cannot predict what the Con- 
gress will do in this regard — that if there are projects of national 
significance that truly affect our global competitiveness, that per- 
haps there is a special treatment given to those kinds of projects. 
They are above the ordinary, if I can use that expression, project 
that might only affect a community or one State. Certainly that is 
my general view, that there are some projects that are far greater 
in their impact throughout the country that perhaps we ought to 
give them some kind of special focus because it requires collabora- 
tion among a number of States over and above the apportionments 
that go to individual States. That would be something that I would 
be willing to entertain. 

Senator Byrd. Well, I thank you, Mr. Secretary. That gives me 
some encouragement to believe that possibly this area of the coun- 
try that we refer to as Appalachia might be in that category which 
would lend itself to such an approach. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues for being so gen- 
erous. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. I will be discussing this 
matter with you as we go along. Thank you very much. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you, Senator Byrd. Senator Gorton. 

Senator Gorton. Mr. Secretary, a bit of a preliminary to this 
question, if you do not mind. 

UNITED STATES-JAPAN NEGOTIATIONS 

During the last year, representatives of the United States have 
met with Japanese officials to renegotiate the aviation agreements 
between the two nations. The 1952 United States-Japan bilateral 
agreement creates an elaborate system of aviation rights between 
the two countries, which has significantly benefited the entire 
United States and very particularly the Seattle-Tacoma Airport 
[SeaTac] in Washington State. 



21 

On the 27th of last month, the resolution on air cargo service 
was agreed to by both parties, and while it is beneficial to both 
sides, it does not constitute an "open skies" agreement, which is 
the optimal arrangement from the United States' perspective. 

The other half of the 1952 aviation agreement on passenger serv- 
ice was not discussed in this last round of negotiations. In the past 
15 years. United States carriers have been able to benefit from in- 
dustrywide efficiency gains in domestic deregulation and subse- 
quently have achieved impressive commercial passenger success in 
Japan. United States carriers today operate 240 round trips a 
week, 66 percent of the total, between the United States and 
Japan, while Japan Airlines operates 120 trips a week. 

The Government of Japan, as a consequence, has sought to cur- 
tail the rights of the United States commercial providers as a 
means of correcting the imbalance between the United States and 
Japan. Their government has indicated a willingness to permit ex- 
panded competition on routes between the United States and 
Japan, third and fourth freedom rights, in exchange for some nego- 
tiated limits on future increases in beyond-operations by United 
States airlines, or fift;h freedom rights. 

FIFTH FREEDOM RIGHTS 

From a policy perspective, a major issue is, should the United 
States sacrifice current fifth freedom rights for an increase in fu- 
ture point-to-point service for more U.S. carriers? 

All of these discussions have an enormous impact on not only the 
country, but particularly Washington State because of the number 
of commercial operations based out of Seattle-Tacoma. This sum- 
mer that airport will have 35 weekly nonstop trans-Pacific pas- 
senger flights. In addition. Northwest Airlines has announced that, 
subject to Grovemment approvals, it will extend its Seattle-Osaka 
service to Jakarta, Indonesia, making it the first United States car- 
rier to serve Jakarta. Using figures from a 1991 study, the aggre- 
gate value of these flights to the Seattle economy is as much as 
$8.75 billion. 

Two weeks ago, 10 members of the Washington State congres- 
sional delegation wrote President Clinton discouraging any renego- 
tiation of existing passenger air service policy. During the Presi- 
dent's recent trip to Japan, I understand that three different con- 
versations took place between the President and Prime Minister 
Murayama. Each time he was questioned about possible renegoti- 
ations of the 1952 treaty. President Clinton acknowledged the ex- 
isting treaty and firmly said that the existing treaty must be 
upheld before any further negotiations would take place. I want to 
tell you I applaud the President for his actions in this connection. 

I would also like to call attention to an editorial that appeared 
in the Washington Post on April 23. In the editorial, Fred Hiatt 
clearly outlined two pertinent issues in this debate and came to the 
proper conclusion, which was outlined again by Laura Andrea 
Tyson when she said that any discussion must — and I quote — 
"start from the principle that we should build on existing rights," 
not give away current and future fifth freedom rights for an in- 
crease in third and fourth freedom rights. 



22 

While there are some who believe that this United States-Japan 
aviation agreement strictly pits United States carriers against one 
another, I hope the administration understands that this is a larg- 
er trade issue with Japan. The aviation industry is one of the few 
industries that produces a trade surplus for the United States be- 
cause quite simply our carriers provide a better product at a lower 
cost. The U.S. carriers should not be penalized because of this situ- 
ation. 

For that reason, I encourage the administration to continue 
standing firm and not to negotiate with the Japanese until the Jap- 
anese accept the pending route applications and uphold the fun- 
damental principles of the 1952 treaty. 

And now the question. Is this and will it remain the administra- 
tion's policies, and if so, what do you see as a possible timeline for 
future negotiations? 

1952 AGREEMENT 

Secretary Pena. Senator, the quotes that you made about the 
President's comment to Prime Minister Murayama and also Dr. 
Tyson's comments are precisely the position that I have taken for 
the last 3 years, and that is a unified administration statement of 
our policy with respect to Japan. We understand the importance of 
opening markets for our airlines, and we appreciate the fact that 
our airlines are very competitive and offer exceptional service. That 
is why we have worked diligently to open up markets around the 
world with open skies agreements, 10 in Europe. We have made 
progress with our friends in Asia and with our allies in South 
America. 

With respect to Japan, you are absolutely correct. The Japanese 
Government historically has taken the position that they would 
like for us to renegotiate the 1952 agreement, that they would like 
to trade ofi" fifth freedom rights for third and fourth freedom rights. 
We have made it very clear to the Japanese that first, we must re- 
spect the rights which are embedded in the current agreement; and 
second, that before we are to negotiate in the area of passenger 
talks, we must clear up pending passenger requests that now are 
before the Japanese Government. 

As an example, in the area of cargo, when the Japanese sug- 
gested that perhaps Federal Express not exercise its rights under 
the agreement, we proposed sanctions. We then had conversations 
with the Japanese and I led those discussions in Los Angeles last 
summer with Minister Kumai. We resolved the issue in a very con- 
structive way. 

The most recent agreement we reached in cargo is but another 
example of advancing the ball. We now have opened up for another 
air cargo carrier new opportunities in Japan. 

While some of the press have characterized that recent agree- 
ment with the Japanese as not being an open skies agreement, let 
me say for the record we never said that we were going to have 
an open skies agreement in air cargo. When I reached my agree- 
ment with Minister Kumai in Los Angeles last year, we said we 
wanted to move the ball forward. We said we wanted to expand the 
market, and that is precisely what we did. 



23 

And as respects passenger talks, we will take the same approach. 
We want to take the base that we have now and expand it both 
in third and fourth freedom rights and in fifth freedom rights. So, 
the statement by the President is obviously the administration's 
position. 

Senator GtoRTON. Timeline for future negotiations? 

Secretary Pena. We do not have a specific timeline to date. We 
just signed the air cargo agreement. I think I signed it on a Satur- 
day. The new Minister Kumai — this is a different Minister Kumai 
than the previous Minister Kumai — signed it I think 2 days later 
in Japan. 

So, we are having just preliminary conversations about the point 
made and that is how do we first resolve the pending request by 
United States carriers that are now before the Japanese Govern- 
ment before we can have a conversation about further discussions 
in the area of passenger. So, I cannot give you a timeline right 
now. I can tell you that there are some informal, preliminary con- 
versations that are going on. 

AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATION 

Senator GrORTON. Thank you for that answer. 

I have got a couple of shorter and more parochial ones with the 
indulgence of the chairman. 

I understand that the Federal Aviation Administration has put 
a $5 million per airport limit on noise grants. As I am sure you are 
aware, SeaTac has been a national leader in airport noise mitiga- 
tion programs and was the first one to implement a local housing 
insulation program to reduce the impact on houses near the air- 
port. That current program is scheduled to run through the year 
2001. 

Do you believe that airports that have committed to large scale 
noise programs before this new limitation policy should have con- 
tinued access to previous levels of funding, or should they be re- 
stricted to a $5 million cap? Is that reasonable under the cir- 
cumstances in your opinion? 

Secretary Pena. Senator, I must tell you I was not aware that 
we now have a $5 million cap on noise abatement grants under the 
FAA. I will look into that and talk to the FAA about that. 

But let me answer your question generally. We think that where 
we have made a general commitment to a community, whether it 
is through a letter of intent or through some other means, that we 
should do our very best to maintain that level of support that we 
have apparently offered certain communities. 

So, let me go back and talk to the FAA about that particular sit- 
uation. I was frankly not aware that we had now imposed a $5 mil- 
lion limit on those noise grants. 

[The information follows:] 

The FAA indeed attempts to provide continuing support to those airports that em- 
bark on long-term programs to mitigate airport noise. As needs have increased and 
available funding has declined in recent years, smaller airports, many of which have 
committed to ongoing noise mitigation, have been unable to compete as successfully 
for the limited amount of noise funds that are available. Therefore, to more equi- 
tably distribute the set-aside noise discretionary funds, FAA initiated a new policy 
for fiscal year 1996 to permit FAA to address noise problems at more locations, in- 
cluding smaller commercial airports. This policy limits the amount of funds that any 



24 

single location may receive to no more than $5 million per year for acquisition of 
land and/or homes and residential soundproofing, and $3 million for soundproofing 
public buildings. This policy is applied uniformly nationwide to all locations apply- 
ing for airport grant noise funding. 

In fiscal year 1995 FAA obligated $163.2 million for grants to achieve noise com- 
patibility, of which $14.5 million was for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 
(SeaTac). Since there is no existing Letter of Intent for FAA airport grant funds to 
SeaTac, they are currently subject to the $5 million and $3 million annual caps on 

f rants of noise set-aside funds. SeaTac and other primary airports may, however, 
ecide to use apportioned funds (i.e., their passenger or cargo formula funds) and 
passenger facility charge revenue in addition to the noise set-aside funds. 

STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANKS 

Senator GORTON. I would appreciate your looking into it and 
your response. 

One final one on the State infrastructure banks. I understand 
you have 15 applications for 10 spots. We are not one of the eight 
you have granted so far. Does our application have a shot at the 
last two, and if not, can you tell me why? 

Finally, if you get the $250 million for next year, how many addi- 
tional States will be eligible? 

Secretary Pena. Senator, with respect to the first question, we 
opened up the option for States to apply for the first 10 banks. 
Eight were clearly exceptional proposals and we approved those im- 
mediately. The remaining two slots we left for a resubmission on 
the part of the original States that submitted proposals. So, like 
your State 

Senator Gorton. The other seven. 

Secretary Pena. The other seven. They are going back and re- 
writing their proposals. We have provided some technical assist- 
ance to some of the States upon their request. I think they are on 
their way back to our office. We hope that by the middle of next 
month, we can make a decision about the final two, but clearly 
Washington is in the running and is part of that original group. 

With respect to your second question — the $250 million we have 
requested — we are in the process of finalizing the criteria that we 
would use in determining how to disperse those funds, but clearly 
we think that perhaps some recognition of those banks that are 
ready to go that can leverage extraordinarily the dollars we can in- 
vest there and perhaps some new infrastructure banks that we 
might want to invite in the future would be the process that we 
would use in funding those infrastructure banks. 

Senator Gorton. So, it might be only to help the original 10, 
there might be a few more. Would that be an accurate 

Secretary Pena. I think your latter characterization, Senator, is 
probably the way we are leaning, probably to include the originals 
and some more. Let me tell you why. 

When we first made the announcement this past year on the first 
10, we stated that we were not going to add any new dollars. So, 
I think some States may not have submitted proposals, feeling 
there were not any new dollars. On the other hand, the States that 
did apply did it because they were creative, they were willing to 
go the extra mile to be inventive and we do not want to penalize 
those that took that extra step. 

So, I am trying to strike a balance between those that first made 
proposals and those who were perhaps thinking about it had there 



25 

been a little monetary incentive to do so. I think we will end up 
probably doing some balancing between both groups. 

Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. 

CAP ON STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANKS 

Senator Hatfield. I would like to just add one postscript. When 
we put the language in the bill last year to create these infrastruc- 
ture banks, we had no limitations of numbers, but when we went 
to conference with the House, they insisted on putting a cap on the 
numbers with the clear understanding that that cap would only be 
temporary depending on the interest from the States and on the 
types of projects and creative financing packages that the States 
presented in making application for the first 10. 

I would also say that since we have worked together frequently 
on mutual issues in the Northwest, I would hope that maybe we 
might be able to be helpful. I think we were one of the first to 
apply. The idea really, in part, came also from our State. So, con- 
sequently, we would be very happy to cooperate with our sister 
State on that. 

Senator GtoRTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DOMENICI. How about New Mexico, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Hatfield. No; that does not include New Mexico. 
[Laughter.] 

Only those States that were part of the original Oregon Terri- 
tory. [Laughter.] 

Senator Domenici. You have adopted me as your brother. You 
know you have got to take care of your brother. 

Senator Hatfield. We are brothers in the Lord, but not in poli- 
tics. [Laughter.] 

Senator Domenici. You cannot be a brother in politics and not 
in the Lord. [Laughter.] 

Senator Hatfield. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There is a good deal of wit being exchanged here. Too bad we do 
not have more money instead. 

In any event, I want to say before Senator Byrd leaves the room 
that I always get some history when I am privileged to sit in meet- 
ings with Senator Byrd or hear him on the floor. Senator, was that 
in the period 500 B.C. that those roads — my memory is starting to 
fail me and I did not realize that it was that far back, but I am 
glad that yours is still so good. The fact that they were able to 
build roads of permanent endurance, we have to find out what kind 
of material they were using. But it always a pleasure 

Senator Byrd. The Romans used volcanic material. 

Senator Lautenberg. Leave it to Senator Byrd. He just told me 
what the material was that they used. I dare not ask a question 
I do not want an answer to, I must tell you. 

It is such a pleasure to be surrounded on two sides by these dis- 
tinguished friends and Senators. 

Mr. Secretary, pleased would be an exaggeration in terms of my 
evaluation of the total budget, but I am encouraged by the focus 
on the expansion of the resource, the innovation that we seek to 
employ because that is the only way, in my view, we are going to 



26 

be able to develop the kind of infrastructure that is necessary for 
the expansion of our needs in this country. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

I am, however, as you know, concerned about the safety issues 
in all modes of our transportation. As I mentioned earlier, I was 
one of the few votes in the Senate in opposition to the National 
Highway System bill. 

When the President signed that bill, he expressed concern about 
its impact on safety and directed you and your Department to issue 
an action plan to reduce highway injuries and related costs. I am 
concerned that we have not seen the kind of a focus or the kind 
of effort needed to get this plan going. 

Your action plan stated that you would appoint a task force to 
educate State policymakers on the consequences of weakening 
highway safety laws within 30 days of the time the President 
signed the bill. It has now been substantially longer than that, and 
I would like to know how much progress we have made, who are 
the members of the task force, how often have they met, what have 
they accomplished so far. If the appointments have not been made, 
when would you plan to do so? 

Secretary Pena. Senator, let me first outline all the steps we 
have taken since that legislation was signed. 

First, the day that the legislation was signed, I sent letters to all 
of the Governors of those States that were still in session encourag- 
ing them to be thoughtful about immediately increasing their speed 
limits. I also provided data about each of their States, and I sent 
letters to the speakers of each house and the presidents of each 
senate of those legislatures. 

In addition, I have communicated with all 50 States about this 
whole issue of speed limits and I personally participated in a na- 
tional campaign to encourage States to begin to take other steps to 
mitigate the safety problems that you and I are both concerned 
about. 

In the area of seatbelts, I went to Florida and had a public meet- 
ing with Governor Chiles about the primary seatbelt law. I am in 
communication with other legislative leaders in Florida to encour- 
age that State to pass their primary seatbelt law. With a little 
luck, it will get passed this year. The same is true with other 
States. 

Recently, I sent out a report to all the Governors on new infor- 
mation we have both on seatbelt use and on motorcycle helmet use. 
The point I want to make is that from the very first day that the 
President signed the bill, I have been personally engaged with Gov- 
ernors and with legislative leaders, encouraging them to take a 
number of steps in addition to creating, at the State level, a safety 
action plan. I believe that as a result of that legislation now the 
States have primary responsibility for safety. It is up to the States 
to develop their own safety plans that reflect the particular condi- 
tions in their States. 

SAFE COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE 

Second, in the budget we have submitted, we are asking for more 
dollars for the safe communities initiative, which precisely is aimed 



27 

at providing modest amounts of dollars that we think will give us 
tremendous impact in helping those communities develop their own 
safety plans. 

In addition to that, the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration has been engaged all over the country in conferences, in 
meetings with legislative leaders, safety groups, and others to look 
at and encourage States to begin to pass those safety action plans. 

A departmentwide task force chaired by my Deputy, Mort Dow- 
ney is developing a DOT plan. In addition, we are reaching out to 
safety groups around the country. 

So, this is a very high priority and we, as I said, took action the 
day that the President actually signed the bill. 

Senator Lautenberg. So, the task force, as you see it, is an in- 
ternal group whose mission is to do the education job on the 

Secretary Pena. That is correct. In our budget, as you know. Sen- 
ator, we do have programs which fund other State programs that 
will help in education and enforcement and in other safety meas- 
ures that we think will help deal with this very serious problem 
of highway deaths in our country. 

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY SAFETY 

Senator Lautenberg. Because what we see, for instance, the 
preliminary indications in California, that fatalities have risen 17 
percent on California's most traveled roads since they raised their 
speed limit on rural interstates to 70 miles an hour back in Janu- 
ary. What do you see about this data that triggers any further ac- 
tions on your part? 

Secretary Pena. We are very concerned about that data. The 
California Highway Patrol issued a press release a few weeks ago 
indicating that since December of last year to, I think, the month 
of March there had been a significant increase in highway deaths. 
We are analyzing that data because it is not clear if those highway 
deaths occurred on those highways that had actual speeds in- 
creased, but we will have that analyzed fairly soon. Then we can 
give you and, frankly, the people of California better information 
about what has happened on those highways where speed limits 
have gone up. 

Again, we think this is part of the education process in each 
State to encourage them to develop their own safety action plans, 
to encourage their State legislatures to take other actions, for ex- 
ample, zero tolerance laws for underage drinkers, a high priority 
of the President. I have been working on that issue also in many 
States. That is the kind of help I think we can give the States. 

But frankly, given the change in the laws, the primary respon- 
sibility now lies with State legislatures. Governors, and community 
groups throughout the country. We are prepared to work with 
them, encourage them, provide them with technical assistance. 

Senator Lautenberg. One of the things I was concerned about, 
in terms of relinquishing some of the involvement of the Federal 
Government, was what we are seeing here. Again, I guess the deci- 
sions were made about how much of the responsibility is pushed 
back to the States. Since the passage of the National Highway Sys- 
tem bill, 21 States have increased their speed limits. Legislation to 
increase speed limits is pending in 13 more. 



28 

SPEED LIMIT STUDY 

A critical part of your action plan was the execution of an inde- 
pendent study to determine how States can best set appropriate 
speed limits. However, Federal Highways tells us that the soonest 
they intend to initiate a study will be in 1997. 

Now, why would we want to delay the initiation of this study if 
the States are currently acting to increase their speed limits? 

Secretary Pena. Mr. Senator, I would like to check with my staff 
about that. I believe we have started to work on that study al- 
ready. So, let me double check. Perhaps the Federal Highway Ad- 
ministration has given you one answer and the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration has started work already, but let me 
double check. There is no need for us to wait until 1997. Let me 
be very clear about that. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department is planning to pursue an independent study of modern methods 
to determine proposed speed Umits, and then to report the fin(ings, conclusions and 
recommendations to the Congress. The study will be co-managed by the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Highway Admin- 
istration (FHWA). These two agencies are currently engaged in negotiations with 
the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academy of Sciences, to 
create an interdisciplinary task force of leading experts, including representatives 
from the States, safety organizations and engineering groups, to undertake the 
study. The study will be initiated during 1996, and is expected to require almost 
two years for completion. During this period the Department will ensure that peri- 
odic reports are made to Congress on the progress of the TRB study. A final report 
will be transmitted to the Congress. 

HIGHWAY SPEED 

Senator Lautenberg. I would think not. 

The one thing I earnestly hope is that my own pessimistic views 
of what might happen, as we increase speeds, does not prove to be 
true. I would rather be wrong in this case, but when you talk about 
40,000 deaths, increasing every day, I think it is a terrible blight 
on pur society. 

We have seen evidence of these things now popping up. We had 
a program that used to be called Intelligent Vehicles Highway Sys- 
tems, and we need an intelligent drivers program. But that may be 
asking too much of our drivers. 

In my view, as I draw from personal experience and see people 
trying to fit a large size car in too small a space as they pass at 
70 or 80 miles an hour — and I am sure all of us have seen it — that 
more should be invested in law enforcement in my view, again a 
States issue, and establishing rules. It seems to me that rules — and 
we ought to be directly concerned about that, of course, on Federal 
highway portions of the system — rules that are either not clearly 
pointed out, signage, et cetera — and I think the system is just fall- 
ing apart for lack of focus in the areas of enforcement and rule es- 
tablishment or rule regulation and enforcement. 

But I am going to say to the chairman I will take some more 
time later after you are done, sir. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg. Senator Do- 
menici. 

Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



29 

I note that the distinguished chairman has indicated that per- 
haps the reason I have a cold is so that I will not talk so much. 
I do not believe I am going to accommodate you on that score. 
[Laughter.] 

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not con- 
gratulate you on the effort for the last 6 or 7 weeks, culminating 
last night. I think we have a good bill. In the normal scheme of 
things, the President got some of what he wanted, and the Con- 
gress got some of what it wanted. Neither side leaves this process 
saying they got everything. Some people think one side ought to 
win it all. They are wrong. Sometimes the President's people 
thought they should win it all. They are not right either. I think 
the bill is a good one, and I compliment you specifically. 

PRESIDE^^^'s budget priorities 

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a general point about the Presi- 
dent's budget with reference to transportation and then ask one 
question and ask you if you would submit three for me that I have 
in writing. 

Senator Hatfield. I would be happy to. 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman and members and Secretary 
Pena, Senator Byrd asked the question of prioritization in this 
budget. I think that means where did the President spend more 
money than he did in highways in terms of increases. I do have a 
nice chart, but I did not bring it so I just wrote one up here. I was 
going to show Senator Byrd what has happened. 

In the years 1997 and 1998, the President has a very significant 
increase, not a decrease — an increase — in domestic appropriated ac- 
counts. Now, there is not such an increase in defense, but in the 
domestic accounts, there is an increase of somewhere between 3.8 
and 4.4 percent. I cannot give it to you exactly, but I can show you 
what it looks like. 

Here is the 6-year program and you see it goes really high. That 
is this election year and part of next year. Then the most interest- 
ing thing is that spending comes precipitously down, and in the 
year 2002, it is even lower than the Republican plan with reference 
to domestic discretionary programs. 

Now, obviously, that is not going to happen. In the very last year 
of this budget, you have to take $46 billion off the 2-years-before- 
that level all in 1 year. Now, that is because the amount you spend 
here in these earlier years does not matter for a balanced budget. 
What matters are the last 2 years of this 6-year period. 

So, in transportation, my numbers show a decrease of $500 mil- 
lion, a half-a-billion decrease, in transportation infrastructure 
under the President's budget. My numbers say it is down about a 
half a billion for 1997. 

But the point is if the President's budget is there this vear, 
where is it going to be in 3 or 4 years? You cannot run around and 
say every account that the President wants to increase is going to 
continue to be increased. Right? Where are you going to get the de- 
creases down here at this end when we need to balance the budget? 
My guess is that transportation has got to come down about 20 per- 
cent under this scheme and in a very short period of time. 



30 

Now, I make two points. That is one, and the other point is the 
domestic appropriated accounts went up, not down. So, when we 
talk about cuts, the cuts occur after the election and into the next 
year. Then the cuts occur, but not before. 

Now, if we want to prioritize — and you are the chairman — clearly 
we have got to decide whether the rest of discretionary spending 
should go up 4 percent in a manner selected by the President and 
transportation be held either at a freeze or below. 

Fortunately, you make part of that decision, you and your coun- 
terparts, your Democratic ranking member and your House people. 
You allocate the money. You do not allocate it exactly the way the 
President did. We do not either in the budget resolution, and then 
you will do it your way. 

I say this in all understanding of the President and his mes- 
sages, and I have heard so many times that the future of this coun- 
try and its economic growth depends upon the infrastructure of the 
country and how much it grows. I have heard the President say if 
you want growth, you have got to have highways and infrastruc- 
ture. Well, let me tell you that most of the social programs go up 
3 and 4 percent. None of those are highway programs. They are not 
infrastructure. What is happening to those is what I have just told 
you and what you know as a result of this hearing. 

I also want to submit a question to the Secretary on the free 
trade agreement as it pertains to truck safety standards. I will just 
let you answer that in the record. Many Senators have asked you 
about NAFTA and our truck safety standards, and so if you would 
answer that in the record, I would appreciate it. 

I will ask you one question on the Roswell radar, which you prob- 
ably are prepared to answer or your staff is, but let us put it in 
the record. 

TRUST FUNDS OFF BUDGET 

There are just two other issues that bother me. I am going to ask 
you some detailed questions about the trust fund status for high- 
way funding, and what is the official position of the administration 
vis-a-vis the position taken by the House that we ought to take the 
transportation trust funds off budget. I hope you will answer those 
for the record. I have about six follow-on questions on that issue 
because if you are for it, then I wonder how you cannot be for many 
other trust funds coming off budget. I would hope in the President's 
desire to keep the budget under control 

Senator Hatfield. Senator, if you would yield. That is the first 
question I have here. You may want to hear his response. 

Senator DOMENICI. Did he already respond to it? 

Senator Hatfield. I was going to ask that question. 

Senator Domenici. I will not submit it then. 

Secretary Pena. I am happy to answer it now, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Pena. On the proposal to take the trust funds off budg- 
et, the administration is opposed to taking the trust funds off budg- 
et. 

Senator Domenici. Gk)od. 

Secretary Pena. We are very concerned about the impact that 
would have on other programs. Specifically, the action in the House 



31 

would probably have a $50 billion impact which would mean cuts 
in other programs, and so we oppose the provision to take the trust 
funds on budget. 0MB Director Riviin submitted a letter to the 
Congress a week or so ago outlining the administration's opposition 
to that effort. 

RESEARCH ON AGING AIRCRAFT 

Senator DOMENICI. My last question has to do with research on 
aging aircraft and the centers that you have around the country for 
that research. It is a ver>' major effort, and I would like some an- 
swers on the center that exists in Albuquerque that is a major es- 
tablishment. With the aging of aircraft, we have got to find out 
with more specificity when they become vulnerable to structural 
problems, and that is part of this research. I would like your an- 
swer in writing. 

Secretary Pena. I would be happy to do that. Senator. 

Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you, Mr. Pena. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you, Senator Domenici. 

Mr. Secretary, are you comfortable? 

Secretary Pena. I am. Senator. 

Senator Hatfield. Do we need a recess or anything? 

Secretary Pena. Senator, if you could give me a sense of how 
much longer the hearing would go, I could perhaps answer your 
question better, but otherwise I am fine. 

Senator Hatfield. I am flexible. [Laughter.] 

Secretary Pena. I will follow your lead, Mr. Chairman. 

coast guard defense mission 

Senator Hatfield. Let me turn to the Coast Guard and the rgle 
of the Coast Guard in performing defense-oriented missions and 
the reimbursement procedures and the transfers. 

I believe that this is the first time, if I am not mistaken, that 
the administration has included funding for the Coast Guard in the 
defense Account 050. Though I am encouraged by the administra- 
tion's request, which I believe is $118 million plus for that reim-r 
bursement under Function 050, this is significantly below the 
amount that the Congress has previously earmarked, as you know, 
in defense appropriations for the Coast Guard. Working through 
our Defense Appropriations Subcommittees, we have reached those 
agreements. The figure the administration has requested for 1997, 
as I say, is considerably lower. I think last year it was $300 million 
that we transferred out of the 050 account to reimburse the De- 
partment of Transportation. 

Now that the administration has recognized that mission per- 
formed by the Coast Guard, why was the figure so low? 

Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, let me give a general answer and 
then if I could ask the Assistant Secretary to respond in more de- 
tail. 

Senator Hatfield. If you would like to submit it for the record, 
we will be happy to wait for the response if you prefer to do it that 
way. 

Secretary Pena. We are happy to do it for the record, Mr. Chair- 
man. 



32 

Senator Hatfield. All right. I have made my question clear, 
have I? 

Ms. Stoll. Yes; we were pleased that it was recognized in the 
preparation of this budget, that the Defense Department had a re- 
sponsibility, the DOD budget had a responsibility for support of 
Coast Guard multimission programs. 

Senator Hatfield. I would like to also know how this figure was 
arrived at, if you had asked for more and this is an interdiction of 
0MB, or how you arrived at the $118 million on the basis of the 
$300 million comparative reference figure that the committee has 
taken action on in the past. 

Ms. Stoll. We will get that to you for the record. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department's estimates to the Office of Management and Budget did not as- 
sume funding from Function 054. The President's Budget request for the Coast 
Guard includes $118.5 miUion in funding from Function 054. This amount was the 
result of negotiations between the Department and the Office of Management and 
Budget. 

SURPLUS PROPERTY 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you. 

Let me just address the disposition of surplus property for a mo- 
ment. As you know, in the current bill that we are functioning 
under, the fiscal year 1996 bill, I included language that would 
allow the Commandant to dispose of surplus real property by sale 
or lease and the proceeds of such sale or lease be credited to the 
acquisitions, construction, and improvement account. That was 
triggered on the basis of question of Governors Island. 

Congress has a gross estimate at the moment that Governors Is- 
land may bring in approximately $500 million through sale. That 
is geared primarily to the public bodies that might be willing or 
anxious to buy the island. We are not trying to dictate the market 
on that. I am told by others that that could be a much higher fig- 
ure if the matter were for the development of Governors Island as 
against other public uses of Governors Island. I do not want to get 
into that subject. I am going to use the $500 million figure as if 
it were being sold to another public body. 

Do you think that $500 million is an accurate figure at the mo- 
ment? If you think it is, if the Coast Guard did sell Governors Is- 
land, is it your judgment these receipts would be credited to the 
acquisitions, construction, and improvement account, or does this 
language need to be reinstated in the fiscal year 1997 budget since 
we had put it in the 1996? Do we have to repeat it if we have some 
movement toward the sale of Governors Island? 

Secretary Pena. The answer to your first question, Mr. Chair- 
man, is yes. We are comfortable with the $500 million figure. In 
fact, we have included that ourselves for scoring purposes. Frankly, 
as you have alluded, there is a very good possibility that amount 
could be exceeded given the potential redevelopment efforts of the 
island and, more specifically, the Coast Guard will essentially leave 
the island by the summer of next year, turn that over to GSA, and 
GSA will then proceed with the disposition. 

The answer to your second question is yes. For the 1997 budget, 
we would request that the same provision be included. 



33 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you. 

TRUST FUNDS OFF BUDGET 

If I understood you as to the highway trust funds being moved 
in the Department off budget, I would ask if that also applied to 
the aviation trust funds. 

Secretary Pena. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Hatfield. All tmst funds. 

Secretary Pena. To all the transportation trust funds. 

HIGH-SPEED RAIL INVESTMENT 

Senator Hatfield. I have some other questions, but I believe 
that Senator Lautenberg has more he wants to put to you. I would 
like to submit these for the record. Before I do, I want to just take 
one last local question that affects me. 

I noted that you have in the budget request for high-speed rail 
corridors a figure of about $26.9 million. Delineate, can you, be- 
tween the portion of that $27 million that is for research and that 
which is for development? 

Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, most of that money, if I am 
thinking of the same category you are contemplating, is for high- 
speed rail technology. So, it is investment in things like the devel- 
opment of a nonelectric locomotive, other kinds of technologies that 
can be used at highway grade crossings so that we can make 

Senator Hatfield. Research. 

Secretary Pena. Mostly research and technology development. 
And we do this in some cases with the private sector. 

Senator Hatfield. We have five corridors so designated I believe. 
Have we granted some money for development? 

Secretary Pena. We have made distributions to those five cor- 
ridors in the past. Most of that I believe was for planning and esti- 
mates of potential ridership, cost-benefit analysis, et cetera. 

Senator Hatfield. Still research fundamentally. 

Secretary Pena. That is correct. I believe that is correct, Mr. 
Chairman. Let me double check that and answer that question 
more specifically. 

Senator Hatfield. All right, if you could for the record; 

[The information follows:] 

The entire amount is for a single purpose which is referred to as "Technology De- 
velopment and Demonstration". A byproduct of most of the technology demonstra- 
tions is a working system that would be used in the high-speed rail corridor, e.g., 
the upgraded Turboliners in New York; the train control systems in Michigan, Illi- 
nois, and the Pacific Northwest; and the innovative grade crossing protection and 
warning systems in a nvunber of locations. 

With regard to funding for the five high-speed rail corridors, these corridors were 
designated by the Department as eligible to receive funds for grade crossing hazard 
elimination under Section 1010 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act. Five million dollars per year has been authorized for this purpose over six years 
(fiscal years 1992-97). This fiinding may be categorized as "development", i.e., ac- 
tual construction or upgrading, although with FRA encouragement, part of it has 
gone for deployment of innovative technologies. In addition, some of the corridors 
(Michigan, Illinois and Pacific Northwest) are benefiting fi-om the technology dem- 
onstration funding requested in past years and again in fiscal vear 1997. ^though 
this has been mainly for new technology, it too has a "development" component 
since it will result in permanent improvements in the corridor. Finally, relatively 
small amounts of fiinding have been earmarked for a combination of planning and 
development in North Carolina, Illinois, and Oregon. 



34 

Senator Hatfield. I would also like to say that there has been 
a general focus on high-speed rail issues in the Cascadia project in 
the Northwest from British Columbia to Eugene, OR. If you look 
at the terrain out there and the population distribution, there is 
real opportunity to develop that with less cost per mile and with 
building enthusiasm and local support from Portland to Eugene. 
That is a flat terrain passing through a less populated area, as con- 
trasted maybe to the Vancouver-to-Seattle segment. 

I want to report that there has been a recent flurry of activity 
in which the small communities along that corridor in the Willam- 
ette Valley have pledged their trust fund that they receive out of 
the State tax accounts. Three of them have dedicated $7 million to 
that. These are small towns, so to speak. The Grovemor has indi- 
cated he will ask the legislature for a matching commitment. The 
counties are now interested in making contributions out of their 
trust funds. So, in effect, it looks as though that we could very eas- 
ily raise $16 to $20 million. 

Would the Federal Government be in a position to match those 
dollars? The rate of matching has not been legislated, the ratio, but 
what would be your estimate as to the original discussions on an 
80/20 match on those rail corridors? 

We figure that in our State, from the Columbia River 120 some 
miles to the Eugene terminus, it would cost about $450 million 
total. We had at onetime a bill that had passed one chamber of our 
State legislature that would have put the State into a $100 million 
figure. If we followed the 80/20, that would mean the State would 
raise about $100 million of the $450 million. 

We have been out there beating the drums, making speeches and 
having events, to push the Cascadia project. I just wanted to report 
that to you for the record. I am not asking for specific answers now 
to those questions, but would you give us sort of a response to that 
information of what is happening out there at the city/village level, 
the county level, the State level to come up with moneys to put a 
fast rail corridor into actuality? 

FINANCING HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

Secretary Pena. Senator, without giving you a specific answer 
today, let me do this. 

First of all, we are very much aware of the tremendous work that 
has ensued in the area of high-speed rail and use of the toggle 
train, when it was out there, which was heavily used, high rider- 
ship. I enjoyed the ride that you and I took a year or so ago to meet 
with the Governor. And we know his commitment, obviously, to 
this area. 

Let me take the information you have provided to me and have 
my staff and FRA and others look at it and see what response we 
might have to that. But before I do that, a couple of things come 
to mind. 

First, depending on how one wants to use a State infrastructure 
bank, for example, and how creative a State might be, this is a pos- 
sible project that might be subject to sort of leveraging of the State 
infrastructure banks. 

Then second, we are seeing more and more communities do what 
you have described. The State of Florida, for example, just an- 



35 

nounced — the Governor and Secretary Watt there — their commit- 
ment to a high-speed rail project where the State has committed 
to, I think, $80 milHon a year for the next 20 years. They have re- 
cently made an award to a consortium on high-speed rail. We know 
that California is also still pursuing some kind of high-speed rail. 

The point that I am making is this. As we go into the reauthor- 
ization of ISTEA for next year, as we see more and more States ask 
for flexibility, express interest in these particular projects, perhaps 
in ISTEA 2, however we are going to call it, there may be a provi- 
sion that deals directly with this kind of new initiative. 

But we will take the information you provided and get a response 
back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department is encouraged by the willingness of a number of States to provide 
substantial funding for high-speed rail development. This is an indication of the fact 
that the States would be likely to put to use and match Federal funding for surface 
transportation if it were available for use toward rail passenger or high-speed rail 
capital investment. 

At the present time, Federal ftinding for high-speed rail development is not au- 
thorized except for loan guarantees and certain uses in which highway or transit 
development is also involved, such as grade crossings of upgrading of lines shared 
with commuter rail services. In certain cases, State Infrastructure Bank funding 
also may be available. 

With regard to the estimated $100 million of State funding available, it is believed 
that it would be quite possible for it te be matched over time on an 80/20 basis with 
Federal funds, but only if the Federal funds came from existing funding now already 
available to the States for other transportation development. However, the State 
would then have to decide t^ forgo other uses of that Federal money. Conversely, 
knowing what is known about the constraints on new Federal funding in the fore- 
seeable future, it would be difficult for the Federal Government to mateh the State 
share at 80/20 from entirely new funds. 

RAIL ALTERNATIVE TO HIGHWAYS 

Senator Hatfield. Bear in mind, too, that we have the most 
traveled interstate. Interstate 5, that parallels the rail through 
that same flat valley. There is a building attitude: "no more lanes, 
let's get trains." Frankly, I think it is a very good slogan. I cannot 
see us in the future continually expanding the lanes of the Inter- 
state System. We can do this other so much cheaper, and we can 
get people out of the habit of highway transportation on short 
hauls and get the passengers out of the cars onto the rails. That 
is one of our them,es. 

That is why, instead of a Mount Hood corridor, we opted for a 
light rail when your predecessor. Governor Gk)ldschmidt, was 
mayor of the city. It was a very important step. It broke the whole 
national picture from just building roads, roads, roads. I just want 
to continue this momentum we are developing out there for the rail 
alternative. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Don't let me rush you, if you have more things that you want to 
ask about here. 

Senator Hatfield. No; I will be happy putting them in the 
record. 

Senator Lautenberg. OK. Thank you very much. 

I am pleased, as I earlier said, to work with Senator Hatfield. 
The spirit and the tone of things in the Appropriations Committee, 



36 

in this subcommittee in particular, have been made more temper- 
ate, less partisan by his very able rule and his patience, at which 
I often marvel. 

I have to say when I hear, from the Northwest comer of these 
United States, about the interest in less lanes and more trains, it 
is consistent with my view of the will from the New Jersey side of 
things across the span of our country. It is incredible to me that 
people just do not grab onto this and say we demand that this is 
the way we begin to do things. We are starting to see much more 
enthusiasm for it. People are willing to pay for it, not always in the 
fare box, but in diverse ways. 

This morning I noted, Mr. Secretary, your colleague from HUD, 
Secretary Cisneros, talking about some of the data, that he has 
been accumulating, that talks about return to the cities and invest- 
ments in some of our poverty centers with building housing that 
is going to let some middle-income people come in. As a con- 
sequence, I see that in response to the congestion, the difficulties 
of getting to where you want to be, and the need, of course, to in- 
vest in the transit system. 

So, I am pleased to hear the endorsement by this distinguished 
Senator ana chairman to my left, and I too will want to say, as 
Senator Domenici did, that I think you did a marvelous job in get- 
ting our accounts funded through the balance of this year. It was 
done with balance, and with the traditional Hatfield skill. 

We are not going to have a year, I promise you, or a remaining 
year of goodbyes to Mark Hatfield, but every now and then I am 
prompted to mention it because we are going to miss your presence 
and your guidance. 

Mr. Secretary, if you have some more moments, there are a few 
questions I would like to get resolved here, at least get some an- 
swers. 

NAFTA IMPACTS ON HIGHWAY SAFETY 

The potential impact of the NAFTA agreement on highway safe- 
ty. First is the impact of the attempt to harmonize the transpor- 
tation rules between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. There 
is a subcommittee established under NAFTA, the Land Transpor- 
tation Standards Subcommittee [LTSS]. 

The Canadians and the Mexicans are advocating the use of 
trucks that are longer and heavier than those currently allowed 
under United States law. At the same time, FHWA is completing 
a study that apparently concludes that the freeze on LCVs, longer 
combination vehicles, merits review. 

I was the lead Senate sponsor of that freeze in the ISTEA bill. 

Now, given the recent actions by almost one-half the States in in- 
creasing speed limits for autos and trucks, is it not ridiculous to 
be talking about allowing even longer, heavier trucks on our high- 
ways? 

Secretary Pena. Senator, obviously anytime there is a proposal 
or even a discussion of adjusting weights and sizes of trucks, we 
are all asking the safety question, including the industry. As you 
know, in the Department we have the Policy Office which is 
chairing the interagency group which is evaluating this question of 
truck weight and size. We did that because, frankly, there was a 



37 

concern raised by some that perhaps the study needed some bal- 
ance and an objective, neutral facilitator, if I can use that expres- 
sion. So, that is why my Policy Office is the overall coordinator of 
that work. 

I cannot give the exact timing of when that work will be com- 
pleted. It will probably be sometime next year or later on this year, 
but I think that is the appropriate way to do that. 

Second, with respect to NAFTA, you are absolutely correct. We 
have worked very closely with the Canadians and the Mexicans to 
try to sjmchronize many of our safety regulations, commercial driv- 
ers licenses, et cetera. 

But the fact is that when December 18 arrived last year and we 
were to have opened the six Mexican border states and the four 
United States border States, after my personal inspection of four 
of the states involved — I was in Otay Mesa. I went down to 
Nogales. I was in El Paso and Laredo — I concluded that we had not 
done enough to ensure that trucks entering our country were going 
to comply with our safety standards. 

For that reason, on December 18 of last year, I announced that 
while we would begin to process the applications of Mexican trucks 
entering the four U.S. border States, we would not finalize those 
applications until we had assurances that additional safety stand- 
ards and measures would be taken, in particular by the Mexican 
Government. 

We have been in conversations with the Mexican Grovemment 
about this. We have not reached a conclusion. We have not reached 
agreement, but it is my view that until we have that assurance, we 
must continue the policy of not finalizing those applications. 

Finally, let me say that the basis for the judgment that I had 
last December has been verified from the facts that we have accu- 
mulated since December 18, specifically that in the commercial 
zone, which is that part of the border from California to Texas 
where Mexican trucks are able to operate — and this commercial 
zone could range from 25 to 30 or 40 or 50 miles, and this goes 
back many years — we have observed that there has been about a 
50-percent failure rate of Mexican trucks, which is about twice the 
failure rate of United States trucks. 

Second, with respect to Mexican drivers, there has been a three- 
fold increase, or a failure rate of Mexican drivers three times high- 
er than that of United States drivers. So, for that reason, we think 
much more work needs to be done before we finally reach agree- 
ment with the Mexican Government about fully opening up our 
borders to Mexican trucks and their drivers. 

Senator Lautenberg. I just do not want to see a kind of back 
door attack on our safety decisions, our rules, and our regulations 
here as a result of the NAFTA agreement. This is something that 
I have been concerned about for some time, not just NAFTA, but 
also the expansion of the size and the weights of trucks. 

Senator Hatfield. I am going to turn the gavel over to the rank- 
ing member at this time, Mr. Secretary. I have a luncheon meeting 
that I have to be on time because it is with military and they are 
always very punctual. But I must also thank you again for being 
here. 



38 

I hope you will take another look at that fast rail corridor, the 
$26 million, in order to make sure that we have some matching 
money available in case those areas of any of the five come up with 
hard cash in the 1997 fiscal year. I would hate to have them be 
stopped in their tracks because we did not have matching money 
in that account, or whatever other way which you might look at 
that from other infrastructure banks or however. I would like to be 
able to say, here it is, once they come up with their cash. 

Thank you. 

Senator IjAUTENBERG [presiding]. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair- 
man. Your trust and confidence is deeply appreciated. 

Mr. Secretary, if you can stay for just a few more minutes. 

Secretary Pena. I would be happy to, Senator. 

RAIL SAFETY 

Senator Lautenberg. I am concerned about rail safety. We dis- 
cussed this more than once. The two rail passenger accidents that 
we saw in February require an immediate assessment, a review as 
to where we are. 

The NTSB investigation of the New Jersey Transit crash centers 
around engineer fatigue. The engineer that apparently ran through 
a stop signal — and again, this is information as I read it, not the 
official NTSB transcript — was working overtime on a split shift. At 
the time of the crash, it had been 14 V2 hours since his shift began. 
He had a 5-hour sleep break in a passenger car up in a railyard 
in rather cold weather. It sounded like a fairly crude way to make 
sure that the person was ready to be able to conduct his respon- 
sibilities. 

In part of my own review, I was surprised to learn that your De- 
partment does not have the authority to regulate the hours of serv- 
ice rules pertaining to locomotive engineers and other railworkers. 
The permissible hours of service of railworkers were set in law in 
1907. You see, with Senator Byrd's absence, I can only go back to 
1907. Otherwise, he moves us back a lot more. It has not been sub- 
stantively amended in 20 years. So, there is absolutely nothing ille- 
gal about the shift work by the engineer involved in the New Jer- 
sey action. 

Now, my question is whether or not you believe that we have 
learned anything new about worker fatigue in the past 20 years 
since the hours of service law pertaining to railworkers was last re- 
vised. 

The current laws pertaining to highway safety and aviation safe- 
ty call on your agency's best judgment, setting hours for service for 
truckdrivers and pilots. I know that you are in the middle of rule- 
making procedures right now, a new one to establish new hours of 
service for the airline pilots. 

Have we learned enough about engineer or worker fatigue to say 
that we ought to be taking a much closer look at the rail hours of 
service, particularly since so much of it now affects growing pas- 
senger use of the rail service? 

RESEARCH ON WORKER FATIGUE 

Secretary Pena. Senator, we have. I know that you know this. 
We have done a considerable amount of research on the question 



39 

of fatigue generally, and we do that throughout the Department in 
a number of modes. We do it in combination with NASA and in 
some cases the NTSB. So, we have developed a substantial body of 
information and testing about fatigue generally. 

With respect to the point you have made about the apparent in- 
ability of FRA to regulate in this area or to set standards in this 
area, we would be pleased to work with you because clearly as we 
see passenger/commuter rail increase in our country — and we saw 
a very sizable increase in the use of commuter rail in the last year, 
and we see that as increasing in future years — I think riders of 
those systems need to have the same level of confidence, whether 
they are on those commuter rails or flying in a plane or on the 
highways, that those who are operating those systems have reason- 
able hours of service regulations. So, we would be pleased to work 
with you on that. 

RAILROAD WORKER HOURS OF SERVICE 

Senator Lautenberg. I have, as you know, introduced the Rail 
Safety Act of 1995. It is S. 1575. That would repeal the current 
hours of service laws, replace them with a provision granting your 
agency the authority to set the hours of service for railworkers as 
a matter of regulation rather than statute. 

How do you feel about that, about taking the hours of service 
segment of our jurisdiction and making it a matter of regulation 
rather than a matter of statute, if we can give you that authority? 

Secretary Pena. Senator, I think my initial reaction is I think we 
would be supportive of that. We think we have considerable re- 
search. 

And I was just reminded that in 1992, obviously before I became 
Secretary of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration 
did submit legislation giving it authority to regulate rail hours, but 
it was not enacted back then. 

So, we do have a considerable amount of research in this area, 
and again we would be happy to work with you to determine how 
best to apply this knowledge and this research to this area. 

POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL 

Senator Lautenberg. The NTSB listed, among its most wanted 
rulemakings, a requirement for the installation of positive train 
control [PTC]. There are different forms of this technology, auto- 
matically enforcing speed controls, applying emergency braking 
when a train goes through a stop signal. 

In my own State, certain lines in the New Jersey transit system 
have the technology while others do not. Similarly, certain Amtrak 
lines have this technology while others do not. 

FRA committed almost 2 years ago, in a report to Congress, to 
work with public and private sectors to foster deployment of con- 
temporary PTC systems on high-risk railcars by the year 2000. 
They say FRA will make it a high agency priority to accomplish 
this objective. 

The year 2000 is coming ever closer. Do you think we are going 
to have PTC systems on all high-risk railcars in 4 years? 



40 

Secretary Pena. Senator, I do not know if all of those will have 
them in 4 years. I can say that this is a high priority and of great 
concern to us. 

We have started, I believe, two or three demonstrations, one in 
the Pacific Northwest, one in the State of Michigan, and the third 
escapes me at the moment, where we are working with the private 
railroads in using this new technology. Clearly, we think it is an 
extraordinary safety benefit. 

In the emergency order that we issued right after the two acci- 
dents — ^you referred to the New Jersey and the Maryland acci- 
dents — ^we stipulated that any particular commuter rail operation 
did not have that train technology and was still using the cab for- 
ward system, they had to submit to us a plan on how they were 
going to address the safety questions being raised in that oper- 
ation. 

But on the broader scale, I think this is clearly a technology that 
is coming. There has been a lot of discussion about the costs of the 
technology, but given the accidents we have seen, given the ques- 
tions that have been raised, I think that we need to continue to 
work on this. So, we are going to commit ourselves to completing 
these demonstration projects that the FRA has started, and we 
want to respond to the NTSB's recommendation as quickly as we 
can. 

Senator Lautenberg. The whole concept of control of train move- 
ments, emergency braking, I think has a significant application in 
many of the freight corridors as well, particularly since the kind of 
cargo that is carried in lots of places is hazardous. We have seen 
what happens in communities when there is a train wreck where 
the train is carrying radioactive material or material that is haz- 
ardous and toxic in any way. It wreaks havoc in the community or 
the communities nearby when these take place. 

So, we have to be looking at these new systems, this new tech- 
nology. Everyone talks about the advent of a GPS system from sat- 
ellites where you can get lots of control, but it is still in the devel- 
opment stage. So, we will both be looking at that I hope, Mr. Sec- 
retary, and see what we can do to complete the commitment that 
was made by FRA by the year 2000. I think that is a good goal and 
we ought to do it. 

AVIATION BILATERAL AGREEMENTS 

I just want to take a couple minutes more to talk about the bilat- 
eral. Senator Gorton opened up the subject about Japan. 

We have had conversations between us regarding your inter- 
national aviation bilateral agreements, your negotiations with Can- 
ada, the United Kingdom, and the Japanese. 

Specific to the issue of access to Canada, our agreement with the 
Canadians allow for the granting of two new routes for the United 
States carriers to Toronto each year until the full open skies agree- 
ment comes into force in 1998. 

The route between Toronto and the New York/New Jersey area 
is the largest Canadian-United States market for air travel. Twice 
over the last 2 years, Continental Airlines has applied to serve that 
market and it has been denied. Instead, grants were made to 
smaller cities serving smaller markets. 



41 

Now, over a month ago, authorities in Pittsburgh informed your 
office that Delta plans to cease their service from Pittsburgh to To- 
ronto on June 1. Does this event not provide an opportunity for you 
to award a new Toronto route to a new city? 

Secretary Pena. It does, Senator, and that is certainly an option. 
We have received a proposal by Continental, I think others, about 
how to handle that particular route. We hope to make a decision 
very soon about that. 

One of the things we did in the Canadian bilateral, which I think 
was very helpful, was that right after we signed the Canadian bi- 
lateral, we immediately granted permission to our carriers to exer- 
cise it. There had been criticism in the past about delays in allow- 
ing our carriers to take advantage of new agreements, sometimes 
missing, for example, a summer season. We are not doing that, and 
in this particular case, I think we have done the opposite. 

So, as respects this particular issue, one thing we are sensitive 
about is not losing the summer season this year. So, we will try 
to act on this area as quickly as possible. Obviously, I cannot com- 
ment on it publiclv beyond that since it is a pending matter before 
the Department of Transportation. 

Senator Lautenberg. I understand. Just for me to make the 
point, however, Canada, New Jersey, important trading partners, 
lots of activity takes place between the two places, and the quicker 
that a decision can be made, the better off we would be, assuming 
that the decision goes the right way, Mr. Secretary. And I know 
you cannot commit and I would not ask you to do that, but we will 
talk. I am concerned that this route otherwise may go unused. 

PASSENGER AVIATION NEGOTIATION 

For a moment more, the agreement, Japan and the United King- 
dom. 

There is universal agreement that the United States-Japan mar- 
ket is underserved. We heard that. 

How committed are you to getting the passenger aviation nego- 
tiation moving forward, Japan and United States? Is that some- 
thing that is high on the agenda, that is imminent in terms of ei- 
ther movement, final decisionmaking? 

Secretary Pena. Senator, I am not sure if you were in the room 
when I answered the question earlier today, but let me simply 
summarize the answer I gave more fully this morning: 

Our position is that we want to build on the rights that exist 
today in the agreement. We do not want to see a degradation of 
third or fourth or fifth freedom rights in the agreement. We want 
to build on those. 

As the President has said and we have said publicly to the Japa- 
nese, we have some pending matters in the passenger area that 
need to be resolved as quickly as possible. Assuming that we can 
get those matters which are pending now before the Japanese Gov- 
ernment resolved, we would then be willing to explore the struc- 
ture of possible discussions on passenger talks, but we have these 
pending matters that first have to be addressed. 

Senator Lautenberg. Because some have argued that the ad- 
ministration is more interested in the fifth freedom rights of oper- 
ating United States carriers than opening up access to Japan for 



42 

those who do not currently have access. How do you feel about that 
allegation? 

Secretary Pena. Senator, we want to do both. That suggestion 
made by some — and I have heard it — is incorrect. We believe that 
there is room for expansion in the third and fourth freedom arena, 
and we think that the fifth freedom rights need to be respected. 

So, what we have suggested to the Japanese is that we ought to 
look at the Canadian model as an example of how this has worked. 
In the Canadian model, when we did that agreement, 1 million 
more people started flving between our two countries in the first 
year. It has benefited both countries, all the airlines of both coun- 
tries, and more importantly, the communities of both countries. 

So, we need to work with our friends in Japan, explaining that 
opening markets is good for consumers. It means better fares, more 
routes, more competition, and it means that our carriers have the 
ability to provide quality service for those who want to fly in the 
beyond markets. 

So, we want to do both and move both forward in a very con- 
structive way. 

UNITED STATES-UNITED KINGDOM ARRANGEMENTS 

Senator Lautenberg. Because we have also discussed the United 
Kingdom-United States arrangements. The forecasts are very opti- 
mistic about what could be if there was additional access provided 
there as well. I know that you concluded the phase one agreement 
with the British. You secured some additional access to Heathrow 
from Chicago. 

Is there any likelihood of additional access to Heathrow for U.S. 
carriers in the near term, for instance, from Newark, from the New 
Jersey region as well? 

Secretary Pena. Well, Senator, let me say that the U.K. situation 
is totally different. I am very displeased with the current agree- 
ment we have with the United Kingdom. It is one of the most re- 
strictive aviation agreements we have with our trading partners. It 
allows, for example, the governments to basically disapprove pric- 
ing of tickets between two countries, which are strong believers in 
market-driven enterprise, who believe in deregulation, who are the 
leaders of the world in terms of this commitment to the market. 

So, we have said to the British that we need to revise this agree- 
ment. Restricting access to Heathrow by our U.S. carriers is not a 
balanced way of looking at this agreement. So, we have worked 
very hard to encourage the British to open up that market and to 
recognize that this agreement is not one based on competition. It 
is very restrictive. 

Having said that. Senator, let me say that I am not optimistic 
that we are going to see substantial progress with the United King- 
dom in this regard. That is why we have been very vigorous in 
looking at other markets, for example, working with the Germans 
where we have signed or hopefully will sign sometime in the fu- 
ture — at least we have reached some preliminary agreement on 
open skies with Germany to open up a new gateway to Europe. We 
have done the same with countries elsewhere in Europe, so that 
eventually Heathrow may not be the only way to access the Euro- 
pean market. 



43 

So, we continue to ask that our friends in the United Kingdom 
recognize that in this day and age there is no reason for our two 
countries to have such a restrictive agreement. We ought to be 
leaders in the world and we ought to be bold, and we ought to have 
a more liberal agreement that allows the market and competition 
and quality service to dictate how we access the markets in both 
our countries. 

Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Secretary, based on what you see, not 
being able to gain the progress, the advancements that we would 
like to see on additional access since the minideal, how do you feel 
now that we have got the minideal behind us, about where we are? 
Do you think that it was in our best interest to have concluded that 
without resolving this question of additional access? 

Secretary Pena. Absolutely. The minideal, if you look at the bal- 
ance of the minideal, was quite favorable to the United States, and 
it did move the ball forward however slightly, but at least it was 
in the right direction. So, the minideal was good for the United 
States. 

Does it give us the kind of liberal access that we have always 
asked from the United Kingdom? No. 

Is it something that we need to continue to pursue? Absolutely. 
So, we need to continue to work with the United Kingdom and per- 
suade them to look to true reform in this arena and to liberalize 
our markets and to provide access to Heathrow and to provide our 
carriers the same opportunities that their carriers have in our 
country. So, we will continue to work on it, but I wanted to be very 
straightforward with you. Senator, and say that we are not opti- 
mistic, at least in the short run, that we are going to see much 
progress in this arena. 

Senator Lautenberg. It is incredible to me with that significant 
a trading partner, alliance between ourselves and the United King- 
dom, that we are stymied here. Are we simply throwing up our 
hands and saying we cannot do anything about it? 

I would like to know, Mr. Secretary, what we can do with your 
advice and cooperation to advance the program. I do not want to 
get threatening in terms of legislative action, but this is something 
that is going to continue to be an irritant. I hope you will be able 
to convey that message. 

With so much of the traffic being handled by British Airways and 
British carriers, I happened to go to England last week, and took 
the airline that I wanted to travel and wound up at Gatwick Air- 
port, unprepared for the distance from London. I should have 
known better because I was there a long time ago. The cab ride 
was $100. It would have been easy to take public transportation ex- 
cept for time and the weight of the baggage. One had to get it to 
the train in order to get there. 

It is a distinct advantage or disadvantage for the carriers that 
are forced to go to Gatwick while British Airways has all of its 
service to our cities as well as a connection to Heathrow. It is an 
unfair advantage that they take, and I would like to have you, Mr. 
Secretary, when you have some time for us to sit down, review 
what else can be done because we want to see something happen 
there. 



44 



SUBMITTED QUESTIONS 



Thank you very much for the time and the thoroughness of your 
presentation, Mr. Secretary. We will submit additional questions in 
writing to be answered for the record. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 
submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hear- 
ing:] 



45 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HATFIELD 
AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND 

Question. The authority to collect several taxes in the aviation area, most 
notably the 10 percent ticket tax, lapsed on December 31, 1995. 
Approximately how much in revenue is being lost to the trust fiind each day 
without this tax? How much has the aviation trust fund lost to date without 
having these taxes in place? 

Answer. The lost revenue to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund from the 
expiration of just the ticket tax is about $14 million per day, or about $1.7 
billion through April 1996. 

Question. Under your current projections, is there a chance that the aviation 
trust fund would reach a zero balance? If so, what is the approximate date? 

Answer. The aviation trust fund is estimated to reach a zero balance in the 
December 1996 - January 1997 time frame. 

Question. Has DOT scheduled or held meetings with the Treasury 
Department and/or the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means 
Committees regarding the necessity to have these taxes reimposed as quickly 
as possible? If so, what has been the outcome of these meetings? 

Answer. There have been several meetings with Treasury and the Office of 
Management and Budget. The meetings have focused on the importance of 
getting the taxes reinstated. 

Question. Under budget scoring provisions, this Committee could provide 
fijnding for the FAA operations and facilities and equipment accounts from the 
general funds. However, because of the way funding for the airport 
construction and the EAS programs is provided, those funds must come from 
the trust fund. What suggestions can you make to the Committee for funding 
these programs if there is little or no money in the aviation trust fund? 

Answer. If the excise taxes are not reinstated, the balance in the trust fund 
at the beginning of FY 1997 could be appropriated for airport grants and 
essential air services. The FY 1997 FAA Operations, Facilities and 
Equipment, and Research appropriations could be funded, at the discretion of 
Congress, from the general fund of the Treasury, or as proposed in Senator 
McCain's bill, be user fee financed. 

Question. Given the seriousness of this issue to the aviation community, 
why do you think this issue has not received greater visibility? In your 
estimation, have the aviation-related groups representing the carriers, 
employees, and airports done enough to "red flag" this issue, or are there 



46 



industry battles being fought which have hindered the reinstitution of the ticket 
tax? 

Answer. The aviation-related groups are fully aware of the issue and have 
been keeping their members apprised. 

Question. Since one-half of FAA's operations, all of the facilities and 
equipment accounts, all of the airport construction account, and all the 
Essential Air Services program receives funding from the Airport and Airways 
Trust Fund, what provisions has the Department made to fund these programs 
if there is little or no money in the aviation trust fijnd? 

Answer. The FY 1997 President's Budget assumes that the aviation excise 
taxes will be reinstated in August 1996. The Department wants to work with 
Congress to reinstate the taxes and solve this problem as quickly as possible. 

ADDITIONAL USER FEES 

Question. In the budget, the Administration offset the request for FAA 
operations by requesting $150 million in aviation-related user fees. Exactly 
what user fees do you have in mind, and how much would each user fee 
generate? 

Answer. There are three proposed user fees. One is a fee for air traffic 
services to aircraft that fly through airspace controlled by the U.S., but do not 
land or take off from a U.S. airport. The estimated collections for 1997 are 
$25-35 million. The second is a fee for FAA determination of the potential for 
interference with air traffic from construction near an airport. The estimated 
1997 collections are $13 million. The third is a fee charged to each air traveler 
for the security provided for air travel. The estimated 1997 collections are 
$95-102 million. 

Question. There is a question as to whether the Appropriations Committee 
has the jurisdiction to grant FAA the authority to impose additional user fees. 
What discussion has the Department had with either the authorizing 
committees or the finance committees regarding these fees? What had been 
their reaction to date? 

Answer. The FAA Administrator has had limited discussions with the 
finance committees, and has testified on FAA reauthorization before the 
authorizing committees. These committees have not provided any conclusive 
instructions. 

Question. If the language requested by the Administration is included in 
the Appropriations bill, do you predict that there will be opposition by the 
other committees of jurisdiction? If so, what arguments would you present to 
overcome this opposition? 



47 



Answer. Because the amount received from proposed fees in 1997 is 
limited, other committees of jurisdiction may be less likely to oppose them. 
We maintain that these suggested fees are true fees for services and are 
appropriate to be paid by the user. 

Question. If the Appropriations Committee were not allowed to include the 
$150 million in additional user fees, what suggestions do you have as to where 
we might find the additional funding to cover your FAA operations request? 

Answer. We have no specific suggestions for replacing these fees if they 
are not allowed at this time. 

FAA PERSONNEL AND PROCUREMENT REFORM 

Question. In the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, the FAA was granted 
unprecedented authority to implement both personnel and procurement reform. 
One of the goals in providing this authority was to curb the rapid growth in the 
costs of FAA. However, in FY 1997, the Department is asking for an increase 
of 5.9 percent above the FY 1996 level for FAA operations. What primarily 
contributes to this $275 million increase for FAA operations? 

Answer. The $275 million increase includes: $121 million net increase for 
inflation and non-discretionary pay costs which includes $80 million for the 3 
percent pay raise in FY 1997; $30 million for staffing increases in the 
controller, field maintenance, and aviation safety inspector workforces; $90 
million for NAS hand-off to make operational the new air traffic control and 
navigation equipment now being delivered as part of the modernization of the 
air traffic control system; $22 million for permanent change of station and 
technical training to restore the FY 1996 cuts; $26 million for other high 
priority programs such as the contract tower and contract weather programs. 

Question. When do you expect that FAA and this Committee will see the 
results of personnel and procurement reforms which will, hopefully, lead to 
lower operating costs? 

Answer. At this point, it is difficult to forecast lower operating costs from 
personnel reform. Two of the main goals are to cut through red tape and 
increase productivity which over the long term should result in lower 
operating costs. In the acquisition area, FAA's goal over the next three years 
is to achieve a 20 percent funding savings and a 50 percent reduction in the 
time it takes to procure and deploy equipment and systems in the National 
Airspace System. 

Question. Given the budget constraints I assume this subcommittee will be 
under (as well as all domestic discretionary spending), what arguments can be 
made to justify the FAA operations increase of 5.9 percent? 



48 



Answer. The FAA operations account finances the personnel and support 
costs of operating and maintaining the air traffic control system, and ensuring 
the safety and security of its operation. Of the total Operations request, $3.7 
billion or 76 percent is to support payroll costs, including payroll for the 
requested additional controllers, safety inspectors, and maintenance 
technicians. The remaining $1.2 billion covers rent, communications and 
utilities, equipment and supplies, and essential support contracts. Most 
important, recognizing the discretionary budget constraints and to permit FAA 
to be less reliant on annual appropriations, the budget proposes establishing 
and collecting $150 million in user fees. These fees will be credited to the 
Operations appropriation and hence offset the budget authority. Thus, the 
$275 million or 5.9 percent increase nets out to $125 million and 2.7 percent. 

Question. What reforms took place on April 1st (as required by the fiscal 
year 1996 appropriations bill)? 

Answer. In late March, Vice President Gore, FAA Administrator Hinson 
and I announced the creation of new personnel and acquisition systems that 
will enable FAA to work better and cost less — fundamental goals of 
President Clinton's National Performance Review. These reforms draw 
heavily on "common sense" best practices from the private sector and are 
designed to increase management accountability, speed up procedures, and 
reduce paperwork throughout FAA. For example, the personnel system is will 
cut the average time for outside hiring from seven months to about six weeks. 
The personnel system will change premium pay and shift differential policies 
to pay employees only for hours actually worked. Under the new personnel 
system, FAA will be able to put the right people in the right jobs more quickly. 

The new acquisition management system will reduce the time and cost of 
acquiring systems and services and make the acquisition workforce 
accountable for their decisions. It will streamline the competitive process and 
cut time to award large contracts from 12 months to six months. It will reduce 
by 50 percent the time from production award to commissioning of equipment 
in the field. The FAA is already applying the new acquisition management 
system to three programs: the Operational and Supportability Implementation 
System for Flight Service Automation, the Integrated Terminal Weather 
System, and Oceanic Systems. 

STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANKS 

Question. The Federal Highway Administration recently announced that 
eight states had been chosen to participate in the State Infrastructure Banks 
program. One of these states, I am proud to say is Oregon. Under the original 
legislation, states could use approximately 10 percent of their apportioned 
money to deposit into the bank, which in turn could be used for loans, 
insurance, and other financing purposes. In the FY 1997 budget request, you 



49 



have asked for an appropriation of $250 million to help capitalize the State 
Infrastructure Banks. Why have you requested funds that will be in addition to 
what the states can generate from their formula apportionments? 

Answer. Under the SIB application process States were asked to identify a 
capitalization plan and sources of funds for their SIB proposal. Under the SIB 
pilot program legislation States are allowed to deposit into the SIB up to 10% 
of their current formula fiands from most highways and transit account. States 
indicated that, while they are very enthusiastic about the SIB concept, their 
short nm ability to redeploy ISTEA formula funds for SIB capitalization is 
significantly constrained in part because most of these fiands are already 
committed to projects approved under the planning process required by 
ISTEA. As a result, it is expected that the pilot States will capitalize the SIBs 
much more slowly and in more limited amounts than would be desirable. The 
$250 million is the estimate of the funding that the Department believes is 
necessary to make the SIB program fully effective as a pilot initiative. 
Without initial catalytic funding by the Federal government to capitalize the 
banks and allow the initial projects to proceed, effective implementation of the 
pilot program is likely to be significantly delayed. This will either defer the 
increased investments in transportation infrastructure, which is the goal of the 
SIB pilot program, or result in a puUing-back from prior commitments in order 
to capitalize the SIBs. 

Question. Would this $250 million go to the original 10 states, or are you 
intending that it be used by other states? 

Answer. The Department is proposing to distribute the majority of the 
$250 million to the initial 10 States participating in the pilot program, with the 
remainder to be used for additional pilot States and to advance specific 
projects. The plan is to allocate the $250 million to the initial 10 States using 
the Hold Harmless formula under section 1015 of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act, except that no State can receive more than 10 
percent of the total available funds in this initial allocation. The remaining 
funds after this initial allocation will be used at the discretion of the Secretary 
to fund additional State Infrastructure Banks or to provide additional funds to 
advance specific worthwhile projects. 

Question. Given the number of applications received for the State 
Infrastructure Banks program, how many additional states do you believe 
could successfiilly participate in the program? Why didn't you ask this 
Committee or the authorizing committees to increase above the original ten the 
number of states participating? 

Answer. DOT received fifteen applications for the ten pilot program 
designations authorized. Given that States had only two months to provide 
applications, this response suggests significant interest in the SIB concept. 
Five other States beyond the fifteen applicants expressed direct interest but 



50 



could not get applications in within the time permitted for various reasons. 
Based upon these responses it is reasonable to assume that a total of twenty 
States could successfully participate in the pilot process. A limiting factor 
may be that the pilot program authorized under the NHS Act only permits 
capitalization of the SIBs with Federal-aid funds from Fiscal 1996 and 1997 
apportionments. As a result, there is a limit to what States might be able to 
achieve during this period and this may reduce interest as we approach FY 
1997. The Department is requesting an increase in the number of States 
permitted in the program. 

Question. The State Infrastructure Bank program has been considered a 
viable financing alternative for the highway program. Out of the original 
applicants, did any of the states request participation for transit related 
purposes? 

Answer. The Department considers the State Infrastructure Bank as a 
complement to the existing highway program and States have responded 
positively to it because it is viewed as an additional financing tool available to 
them along with other changes included in ISTEA and the NHS Act. As it 
relates to transit, there were a number of transit projects included in the 
applications received. Also, there were numerous multimodal projects which 
have significant transit and passenger-rail components included in the 
proposals. The majority of the applications indicated that States intend to 
activate the transit accounts permitted for the SIBs, but nearly all recognize 
that this may take more time to activate in part because agreement between 
States and local transit grant recipients can take time to negotiate. 

Question. Do you believe that the State Infrastructure Bank program could 
also serve to help the infrastructure of airports? Why do you believe that the 
highway program is ahead of transit and airports in terms of using this 
alternative financing mechanism? 

Answer. The Department believes that there is a potential role for the SIB 
in dealing with airport infrastructure needs particularly for smaller airports. 
The AIP reauthorization bill submitted to Congress included a proposal to 
permit pilot SIBs for certain States already participating it the AIP pilot block 
grant program. This approach is likely to be the most effective one for SIBs 
and airports. It is less likely that State-level banks could be effective in 
addressing the infrastructure needs of large airports, in part because these 
airports have excellent direct access to capital markets on their own. 

The highway program's advancement of alternative financing mechanisms 
may appear to be ahead of the transit program, but that comparison does not 
recognize that these programs have different starting points. Traditionally, the 
highway program had fewer financing alternatives available to it under Title 
23 than did transit, so there is much fiirther to go for highways. Also, the size 
of the highway program is greater which has resulted in more projects being 



51 



advanced under the highway initiative. The Department's goal under these 
efforts is to have a sufficient number of alternative concepts identified by the 
modal administrations so that these can be combined in a comprehensive 
financing approach under reauthorization. 

While the highway program is clearly ahead of the airports efforts in the 
area of alternative financing, the Department's proposed AIP reauthorization 
bill includes a number of significant efforts to accelerate the FAA's efforts to 
develop alternatives. This includes the creation of a select panel on innovative 
financing and a request for test and evaluation authority similar to that used by 
the highway program. 

COAST GUARD FUNDING IN DEFENSE 

Question. For the first time, the Administration has included funding for 
the Coast Guard in the Defense account (Function 054). Though I am 
encouraged by the Administration's request of $1 18.5 million, this is 
significantly below the amount that Congress has earmarked in past years out 
of the Defense bill for Coast Guard defense-related activities. Was the $11 8.5 
million an estimate by the Office of Management and Budget? Did the 
Department request funding above this level? 

Answer. The $1 18.5 million was an estimate provided by the Office of 
Management and Budget. The Department's estimates did not include funding 
attributable to Function 054. 

Question. Would the Department be opposed to Congressional action that 
tried to provide more than $1 18.5 million from the Defense Bill? 

Answer. The Department believes that the President's Budget provides an 
appropriate balance between Function 054 and Function 400. 

COAST GUARD STREAMLINING EFFORTS 

Question. The Coast Guard is well into its second year of "streamlining". 
Please briefly summarize for the Committee what have been the major 
accomplishments under the Coast Guard's streamlining efforts. 

Answer. The Coast Guard is into its third full year of streamlining. In 
1993, the Coast Guard first received out-year budget targets that clearly 
indicated that a number of tough budget years lay ahead. The Coast Guard 
began work on a multi-year budget strategy with the goal to identify savings 
from administrative and overhead areas and minimize the adverse impact of 
the delivery of operational services to the public. 

As a product of this strategy, the fiscal year 1994, 1995, and 1996 budgets 
included the following major streamlining accomplishments: 
- Reduction of more than $249 million ($167 million identified 

by the Coast Guard and $82 million more imposed by Congress). 



- Reduction of more than 2,600 people. 

- Reduction of the Selected Reserve Force from 10,500 to 8,000. 

- Decommissioning of 1 8 muhi-mission cutters. 

- Removal of 1 7 multi-mission aircraft from service. 

- Consolidation and releveling of resources among 185 small boat 
units. 

A major element of the Coast Guard's multi-year budget strategy was the 
1995 initiation of two major streamlining studies, one to focus on 
Headquarters and the field command and control and support organizations, 
and the second to evaluate the training infrastructure. In combination, the 
results of these studies will produce more than $80 million in recurring 
savings, $30 million of which, including nearly 840 positions, are reflected as 
part of the Coast Guard's fiscal year 1997 budget request. The savings of 840 
positions is partially offset by programmatic increases; for example, a crew for 
the new seagoing buoytender (WLB). Another $24 million in fiscal year 1997 
budget savings is derived from other streamlining initiatives. 

Significant savings initiatives in the fiscal year 1997 budget include: 

- Reduction of Coast Guard Headquarters staff by more than 200 positions 
and relocation/consolidation of approximately 300 more Headquarters 
positions 

- Consolidation of Atlantic Area and Fifth District staffs 

- Consolidation of Pacific Area and Eleventh District staffs 

- Consolidation of the Second and Eighth Coast Guard Districts 

- Reduced staffing at District offices not affected by other consolidations 

- Initial phase of closure of the Electronics Engineering Center in 
Wildwood, New Jersey 

- Initial phase of the closure of Governor's Island, New York 

Question. Do you have any estimate of what the savings, in terms of 
dollars and personnel, have been achieved by streamlining? What further 
efficiencies might be expected? 

Answer. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1997 budget represents the third 
full year of multi-year streamlining. The Coast Guard is implementing its 
most comprehensive reorganization and streamlining effort ever - part of its 
overarching plan to save $400 million and reduce over 4,000 billets and 
positions by fiscal year 1998. The Coast Guard's progress in achieving these 
goals is summarized as follows: 



53 







($ millions) 








Coast Guard 


Additional 




Total 




Proposed 


Congressional 


Total 


Workforce 


Fiscal Year 


Reduction 


Reduction 


Reductions 


Reduction 


1994 Enacted 


$42.4 


$18.0 


$60.4 


-886 


1995 Enacted 


$42.6 


$23.0 


$65.6 


-953 


1996 Enacted 


$81.6 


$41.2 


$122.8 


-818 


1997 Request 


$54.3 





$54.3 


-799 


Totals 


$220.9 


$82.2 


$303.1 


-3.456 



The fiscal year 1998 budget request will include the final phases of many of 
the major streamlining study initiatives, and savings in the form of a return on 
investment from projects funded in the Acquisition, Construction and 
Improvements appropriation. 

GOVERNORS ISLAND, NEW YORK 

Question. The sale of Governors Island has been proposed in a number of 
budget resolutions, reconciliations bills, and is also used as an offset in the 
current Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Has the Department independently done 
an estimate of the gross revenues that could be generated through the sale of 
Governors Island? 

Answer. No, the Department has not conducted such an independent 
appraisal. A true market value of the property will require a zoning 
determination by the City and a highest and best use analysis. 

Question. Out of these gross revenues, what does the Department estimate 
might be needed for cleanup and the costs of transferring the Coast Guard off 
Governors Island? 

Ans^ver. The following estimates are one-time costs that will be incurred to 
relocate units off Governors Island and close the facility. 



Facility Construction/Rehab Projects 

for relocation facilities 
Equipment/Personnel Relocation/ 

Severance Pay 
Environmental Cleanup 



$36 - $39 million 



$17 -$19 million 
$ 1 - $2 million 

$54 - $60 million 



54 



Question. Has the Department been approached by any State or local 
officials regarding Governors Island, or has the Department been approached 
by any private interests regarding the sale of Governors Island? 

Answer. Neither the Coast Guard nor the Department have been 
approached by interested buyers. However, under current procedures such 
contact is not expected. Pursuant to the federal property disposal process, a 
Board of Survey will be conducted for the entire island. Once approved, the 
property and improvements will be declared excess to the needs of the Coast 
Guard and then the General Services Administration (GSA) will become the 
disposal agent. Since GSA will dispose of the property, all contact by 
potential buyers will be with them. 

Question. Congress has a gross estimate that Governors Island may bring 
in approximately $500 million through its sale. What mechanism would the 
Department use to advertise the sale of Governors Island? Do you expect to 
generate more than the Congressional estimate of $500 million for its sale? 

Answer. The General Services Administration (GSA) would handle the 
disposal of this property. Marketing of the property also would be at their 
discretion. The market value is highly uncertain due to historic assets with 
mandatory preservation plans and uncertainty over potential zoning of the 
property. However, only a zoning determination by the City, and then a 
highest and best use analysis will provide a true market value of the property. 

Question. In the fiscal year 1 996 I included language which would allow 
the Commandant to dispose of surplus real property by sale or lease, and the 
proceeds of such sale or lease to be credited to the acquisition, construction, 
and improvements account. If the Coast Guard sold Governors Island in 1996, 
is it your judgement that these receipts would be credited to the acquisition, 
constniction, and improvement account? Does this language need to be 
reinstated in the fiscal year 1997 bill to ensure that the Coast Guard receives 
the proper credit for the sale of Governors Island? 

Answer. The Coast Guard will continue to use portions of Governors 
Island until the Summer of 1997 while relocation sites are finalized. 
Therefore, this property cannot be sold in fiscal year 1996. If the language 
dealing with the sale of surplus Coast Guard real property were repeated in the 
Coast Guard's fiscal year 1 997 appropriation (as proposed in the President's 
FY 1997 budget) and GSA found a buyer before the close of the fiscal year, or 
the authority was made permanent in the Coast Guard's authorization bill, the 
proceeds would return to the acquisition, construction, and improvement 
appropriation. Regardless of the timing of the sale of Governors Island, 
repeating these disposal provisions are advantageous to the Coast Guard and 
the Department. The Coast Guard has a number of real property assets that are 
planned for disposal over the next few years which could benefit from such 
provisions. Enhancing these provisions with waivers to mandatory federal 



55 



screening and other current provisions as well as widening the scope to include 
excess operational assets (e.g. boats, ships and aircraft) could streamline the 
disposal process and allow the government to reap the disposal value of its 
assets faster. 

Although the Coast Guard has a large backlog of asset investments which 
could make use of the proceeds from the sale of Governors Island, the 
Department does not want to rely on these proceeds as a funding source for 
any portion of the Coast Guard's budget. The uncertain timing of the sale and 
wide variability in the property value would result in financing that is too risky 
for the important functions performed by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard 
and the Department are hopeful that any diversion of proceeds from the sale to 
non-Coast Guard purposes would at a minimum include a return of 
$60,000,000 to reimburse the Coast Guard for its closure actions which 
yielded this significant revenue source. 

TRUST FUNDS OFF BUDGET 

Question. As you know, the House of Representatives recently voted to 
take the transportafion trust funds off budget. What is the Department's 
position regarding trust funds off budget? 

Answer. The Department is strongly opposed to proposals to take the 
transportation trust funds off-budget. We should not redefine the deficit 
calculation to exclude certain programs or to exempt programs from 
appropriate budget controls. 

Question. Why do you believe that the off budget vote was successful in 
the House? What has the Department done on the Senate side to oppose 
taking transportation trust funds off budget? 

Answer. It is difficult to understand how the House could have voted to 
take the trust funds off budget given their otherwise strong sentiment to 
balance the budget. Obviously, that would be much more difficult if trust fund 
spending were divorced from the budget process. 0MB Director Rivlin has 
sent a letter to Senator Stevens expressing the Administration's opposition to 
taking the trust funds off budget, and DOT officials have been clear in their 
statements in hearings and meetings about the Department's position in 
opposition to that legislation. 

Question. Do you agree with the argument made on the House side that the 
transportation trust fiinds have been used to mask the overall federal budget 
deficit? 

Answer. No. There is confusion on that point, but the deficit is a simple 
calculation: the difference between total federal receipts in any year and total 
federal outlays. Balances credited to particular trust funds do not affect that 
calculation. That being said, if the trust funds were taken off budget and 



56 



spending from them increased, those increased outlays would increase the 
deficit unless there were offsetting reductions elsewhere. 

Question. One of the misconceptions raised during the off budget debate 
was that "surpluses" in the transportation trust ftinds were used to mask the 
federal deficit. Because the federal government is on a cash accounting 
system, isn't the surplus argument erroneous, in that past years' surpluses do 
not count in the calculation of the federal deficit? 

Answer. Yes, that argument is erroneous. Past years' surpluses do not 
enter into the calculation of the annual federal deficit. 

Question. Given that the highway trust fiind has a cash balance of 
approximately $ 1 5 billion, but has an outstanding commitments against that 
balance of approximately $44 billion, how would that affect the ability to 
spend additional monies if the trust fiind were off-budget? 

Answer. The highway trust fiind is overcommitted: if the programs 
financed from the highway account of the trust fund, for example, were 
terminated at the end of this year, the taxes credited to that account would 
have to continue to be collected for well over a year to provide the income to 
pay the bills those commitments generate. There is a control on how 
overcommitted the highway trust fund can become - the so-called Byrd and 
Rostenkowski Amendments — and House proponents of off-budget legislation 
relied on those provisions to ensure trust fund solvency, but, in fact, they do 
not provide sure protection against trust fund insolvency. 

Question. If the aviation trust fund were moved off budget for the purposes 
of financing the Federal Aviation Administration, and since you project a zero 
cash balance in that fund as early as November 1996, how would FAA finance 
its activities under the off budget scenario? 

Answer. If the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were restricted to 
aviation trust fund financing for all or a major portion (as it is today) of its 
programs, there would be a crisis in this country as the trust fund resources ran 
out. This nation's economy and mobility depend heavily on the FAA for 
operation of a safe and efficient aviation system. To the extent that taking the 
trust funds off budget resulted in an increase in trust fund spending, it would 
accelerate the arrival of the day the aviation trust fund goes broke. The only 
solutions that appear available to avoid a crisis are to reinstate the aviation 
excise taxes credited to the aviation trust fund, change FAA financing to direct 
user fees, or appropriate general funds for FAA. 

ISTEA REAUTHORIZATION 

Question. Even though the existing ISTEA bill has funding in place 
through fiscal year 1 997, hearings may begin as early as this summer on the 



57 



form and function of the next ISTEA bill. Is the Department going to submit 
its own version of ISTEA when these hearings start? Could you give us a 
preview of any particular highlights or changes that might be included in the 
Administration's authorization bill? 

Answer. The Department expects to submit a proposal for reauthorization 
of ISTEA at about the time the President submits his budget proposal for fiscal 
year 1998, that is, early next year. In the meantime, we will be seeking the 
views of the transportation community by sponsoring a series of fora this 
spring and summer. We plan to hold a forum in each of our regions. We will 
develop specific proposals for reauthorization in the fall, after our outreach 
process has been completed. We have made no decisions at this time on 
specific elements of a proposal, but we believe the principles that 
reauthorization should advance in order to promote a safe and efficient surface 
transportation system are: promote intermodalism, improve planning and 
public participation, empower state and local officials, strengthen partnerships, 
encourage performance management, promote innovative financing, 
encourage new technologies, and encourage better infrastructure investment 
and management. 

Question. Are there particular programs or categories in the highway or 
transit areas that you believe need to be eliminated or greatly reduced? 

Answer. We want to complete current analyses process before deciding 
on any specific changes we would recommend to our surface transportation 
programs. 

Question. What programs would or should be expanded? 
Answer. We want to complete our review process before deciding on any 
specific changes we would recommend to our surface transportation programs. 

Question. Would the Administration provide the states even greater 
flexibility, or would there be changes in the federal, state, and metropolitan 
planning organization relationship? 

Answer. In general, the flexibility provided in ISTEA has helped state and 
local governments better match Federal grant funds to local needs. ISTEA's 
successor should continue leveling the playing field so that all types of 
projects — including perhaps rail and intermodal projects — can be chosen 
based on their transportation merit, rather than whether they fall into some 
fixed category. Similarly, ISTEA significantly improved the planning process. 
ISTEA's successor must continue to guarantee that investment decisions are 
the product of a systematic, inclusive planning process -- an informed political 
decision. We do need to look, however, at whether there are better ways to 
achieve our objective of informed and wise decisionmaking. 



58 



Question. Is it likely that the Administration might be suggesting 
additional creative financing schemes in the next ISTEA authorization? If so, 
what form would they take? 

Answer. Innovative financing has been a priority and a success for the 
Department in recent years. The NHS Designation Act authorized a pilot 
program for State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs), which builds on the progress of 
earlier Department efforts. As part of the FY 1997 Budget, we are proposing 
$250 million to capitalize SIBs. We will continue to try to develop and 
implement innovative financing options. ISTEA's successor should continue 
efforts to create new ways of providing the transportation America needs. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SAVINGS 

Question. In the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, the Department was 
directed to come up with $25 million in savings, to be achieved through field 
office consolidations and the reduction of duplicative administrative offices. 
What progress has the Department to date in complying with that 
appropriations directive? How many offices have been consolidated and or 
co-located? What administrative offices have been consolidated? 

Answer. Field office consolidations incur many short-term expenses, and 
cannot save money in the first year. Although DOT has reduced 
administrative expenses by $25 million in this fiscal year, the reduction has 
been largely from personnel compensation and contractual services. Almost 
$9 million of the reduction was from personnel compensation, including 
deferring of vacancy backfills, filling vacancies at lower grade levels, and 
cancellation of FTEs including those in the targeted positions. Contractual 
services, including training, operating expenses, and consultants, were reduced 
by $13 million. Travel was reduced by $1 million, and furnishings and 
equipment by $2 million. Direct safety staff (e.g., inspectors) were protected 
from reduction. 

No offices have yet been consolidated, but, on April 24 and 25, 1996, the 
regional administrators of the FHWA, FTA, NHTSA and FRA met together in 
Washington. D.C., to develop guidelines for restructuring field activities. 
Beginning immediately, the regional offices will use these guidelines to 
develop and implement common sense solutions that meet their own local 
conditions. The Department has set a goal of September 1997 by which to 
implement fully new metropolitan service delivery teams to provide one-stop 
shopping for our customers, functional consolidations, and resource sharing 
arrangements. 

Question. In what agencies have you been able to make the greatest 
amount of savings? In your estimation, have these savings helped or hurt the 
Department's delivery of services to the public? 



59 



Answer. The largest dollar reductions were in FHWA, NHTSA, and OST. 
But those reductions do not represent savings from consolidation or co- 
location. We expect that field office streamlining and consolidation will 
ultimately produce savings. However, as is the case with most relocations, 
little or no savings accrue in the first year. 

Question. Do you believe that additional savings can be achieved past 
1996 through further field office consolidation and administrative office 
reductions? If so, how much and in what areas could such savings be 
achieved? 

Answer. Our target for savings is still being developed with the surface 
modes, and we expect to achieve the full benefit of dollar savings by fiscal 
year 1999. 

HIGH SPEED RAIL -- CASCADIA CORRIDOR 

Question. As I indicated to you at our April 25 hearing on the 
Department's proposed fiscal year 1997 budget, I am seeking your help in 
securing federal matching funds to augment the extraordinary efforts being 
made by Oregon communities to provide funds for high-speed train service on 
the Cascadia Corridor. I appreciate your offer to consult with the appropriate 
departmental officials to see how you can be helpful. In particular, I am 
interested in what federal funding resources may be available. The State of 
Oregon has been selected for the State Infrastructure Bank Program and 
perhaps some innovative funding mechanism might be used in connection with 
the Oregon SIB. Do you agree? If so, please provide some suggestions for 
SIB funding. 

Answer. Several possible sources of funding could be used in connection 
with the Oregon SIB, including the CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation in Air 
Quality) funds available under ISTEA; Section 1010 funds for grade crossing 
hazard elimination, also under ISTEA and FHWA Section 130 funds for safety 
improvements that can be used for grade crossings. For intermodal stations, 
funding sources such as FTA Sections 3, 8, 9, 26 (b), oil over-charge funds 
and HUD special purpose grants could be used to plan and implement station 
work. 

HIGH-SPEED RAIL FUNDING 

Question. The Federal Railroad Administration also provides funding for 
high- speed rail projects. Can you suggest some areas of funding within FRA 
accounts, or any other modal accounts, that might be appropriate? 



60 



Answer. The Swift Rail Development Act contains authority to fund both 
planning, and technology demonstration and deployment for high-speed rail. 
The President's FY 1997 budget has requested funding for both categories. 

Question. I am very concerned that the future of high speed rail funding 
will be jeopardized if the Department of Transportation concentrates the lion's 
share of its resources strictly on the East Coast of this nation. Growing 
populations in the Pacific Northwest are looking to rail service as the energy 
efficient and environmentally sound solution to highway congestion and 
transportation needs. What is DOT doing to promote the creation of high 
speed rail service in the Pacific Northwest? What more can DOT do in the 
future? 

Answer. The Federal Railroad Administration, under its Next Generation 
High-Speed Rail technology demonstration program, is working with the 
states of Oregon and Washington and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe 
(BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) railroads to demonstrate and deploy advanced 
train control systems which are required for high-speed rail service. BNSF 
and UP are developing the system, called Positive Train Separation (PTS) to 
control freight operations and have equipped an 800-mile demonstration 
territory in the two states. 

FRA is sponsoring efforts to enhance the PTS system design so that the 
new system will permit high-speed passenger operations in the Portland- 
Seattle corridor, which is part of the BNSF-UP demonstration territory. FRA 
is in the final stages of awarding a $5 million cooperative agreement to 
Oregon to install PTS in the Portland terminal area, to assess its effectiveness 
there, and to enhance the corridor passenger operations in the Portland area. 

FRA is coordinating with the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of 
Engineers to install a Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) 
transmitter to assure accurate GPS location ability along the Columbia River 
gorge. The transmitter facility will not only permit the BNSF-UP 
demonstration to fully test automatic location for trains, and will remain as a 
permanent facility. 

FRA is sponsoring the creation of a computer model of train operations on 
the Portland-Seattle corridor, also in partnership with the BNSF and UP and 
the states of Oregon and Washington. The results produced by the model will 
be instrumental in helping to assure there is adequate track capacity on the 
corridor to permit the addition of high-speed passenger operations while 
continuing to accommodate the freight traffic which is vital to the national 
economy. 

Under the ISTEA Section 1010 program, FRA has made a $1 Million grant 
to the State of Washington to improve grade crossing protection on the Pacific 
Northwest Corridor by linking the train location and speed information soon to 
be available from the PTS train control system with advanced highway 



61 



warning methods being developed under the Intelligent Transportation 
Systems (ITS) program. 

FINANCING HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

Question. Please provide any additional suggestions that you may have to 
assist the people of Oregon and local government entities in their efforts to 
finance high-speed rail service for the region. 

Answer. The State of Oregon wants to consider establishing a stable and 
continuing source of funding that is available at the State level either for direct 
funding of high-speed rail, for matching Federal funds for rail-related 
investment, or for use in conjunction with State Infrastructure Banks loans or 
loan guarantees. 

FEES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 

Question. The OST charges fees to process applications for different types 
of transportation services. According to a GAO report issued in January 1996, 
OST charges fees for 50 types of applications, including applications to 
operate a new airline. The report notes that OST's fees for new airline 
applicants only recover a portion of the government's costs for processing the 
applications. What are the different types of services for which OST charges 
application fees? How much are the fees for each type of service? 

Answer. The fifly categories for which OST charges application fees are 
generally related to special services provided to identifiable recipients 
involved in interstate and oversees air transportation. The 50 services along 
with the fee for each service are listed on the following table: 

Interstate and Overseas Air Transportation 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity: 



Application under sec. 40 1 




Charter 


850 


Scheduled Service 


850 


Dormant Authority 


290 


All-Cargo under sec. 4 1 8 


670 


Transfer 


290 


Air Taxi Registration 


8 


Scheduled Passenger Commuter Registration 


670 


Change of Name 


56 


(registration of trade name or reissuance 




of certificate) 




Exemption Request (General): 




Section 403 


53 



62 



Section 401 (domestic) 280 

Section 419 120 

Service Mail Rate Petition 420 

Foreign Air Transportation (U.S. and Air Carriers) 



Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (sec. 401): 




Scheduled Service 


900 


Amendment to application 


425 


Charter Service 


600 


Amendment to application 


200 


Transfer 


255 


Change of Name (registration of trade name of 


56 


reissuance of certificate) 




Foreign Air Carrier Permit (sec. 402): 




Initial 


760 


Amendment/Renewal of permit 


475 


Amendment to application for a permit 


215 


Exemption: 




Section 403 


53 


Section 401/402: 




10 or fewer flights 


77 


More than 10 flights 


360 


Filed less than 10 days before effective date 




date requested 


17 


Other (U.S. and foreign air carriers) 


360 


Emergency cabotage (sec. 416(b)(7) 


360 


Relief for U.S. (Sec. 101) and foreign (sec. 416) 


370 


indirect air carriers 




Undocketed items: 




Canadian Charter Air Taxi Registration 


30 


Foreign Freight Forwarder Registration 


11 


Foreign Tour Operator Registration 


10 


Foreign Aircraft Permit (part 375) 


25 


Special Authorization (part 375) 


12 


Charter Statement of Authorization 


8 


Intermodal Statement of Authorization 


10 


Special Authority (part 216) 


37 


Items 33-37 if filed less than time required 


11 


before effective date 




ATA resolutions 


61 



Other (U.S. and Foreign Air Carriers) 
Charters: 



Public Charter Prospectus 


39 


OMPC Operation Authorization 


665 


Waiver of Charter Regulations 


39 


Tariffs: 




Pages 


2 


Special Tariff Permission 


12 


Waiver of Tariff Regulations 


12 


Approval of Interlocking Relationships 


415 


Merger or Acquisition of Control 


1,080 


Exemption request 


370 


Agreements filed under section 412: 




Prior Approval (docketed) 


1,080 


Routine (nondocketed) 


64 



Application for free and reduced-rate transportation 16 

Question. What are the government's cost for processing applications for 
the different types of services compared to the fees collected? 

Answer. The Department is currently evaluating the cost for processing 
applications for the different type of services. The current fee schedule found 
in 14 CFR Part 389.25, will be updated and revised once the evaluation is 
complete. 

Question. According to the GAO report, the existing structure has not 
been reviewed in 10 years. Has OST developed a plan to revisit the 
appropriateness of the fees? If so, what is the status of OSTs effort to 
reexamine the fees? If not, why has OST not taken action to reexamine the 
fees? 

Answer. The Department supports GAO's recommendation and has begun 
to reevaluate and update fees for certifying the economic fitness of those 
involved in interstate and overseas air transportation. As part of this 
reevaluation and in keeping with the Administration's goals to reinvent 
government and streamline our rules and regulations, the Department is also 
reviewing the appropriateness of all fees contained in 14 CFR Part 389. 

FAA PROCUREMENT AND PERSONNEL REFORM 

Question. On April 1, 1996, FAA began operating under new procurement 
and personnel systems. In the past, OST reviewed major acquisitions through 
the Transportation Systems Acquisition Review Council (TSARC) and the 
work of the Office of Acquisition and Grant Management (M-60). What do 
you see as the Office of the Secretary's role in FAA's procurement and 
personnel actions? 

Answer. Over the past several years, OST has gradually delegated authority 
for most day-to-day procurement actions to the DOT Operating 



64 



Administrations (OA's) including the FAA. OST is rarely involved in 
operational procurement decisions for any of the OA's except at their request. 

FAA continues to participate on the DOT Procurement Management 
Council (PMC) which is responsible for developing the overall strategic 
direction for the DOT procurement system. The PMC is a forum where senior 
procurement managers can share innovative techniques and ideas and discuss 
issues of common interest (e.g., acquisition workforce training, electronic 
commerce). The PMC is also the central point for implementing government 
wide procurement initiatives within the OA's (including the FAA) such as 
establishing performance measures for the procurement system. FAA also 
currently continues to report its procurement actions into the Federal 
Procurement Data System through the Department's Contract Information 
System. 

OST's role in FAA's procurement actions will be at a macro, system-wide 
level. However, OST remains involved in critical major acquisitions (over 
$50 million) which directly impact the Department's ability to successfully 
accomplish its missions. 

On the personnel side, OST will continue to serve in a leadership role to 
ensure the successful implementation of FAA's personnel reform initiatives. 
As in the past, OST will work in partnership with FAA by providing assistance 
in identifying and reducing impediments to human resource management 
improvements. 

Question. What functions related to FAA's acquisitions will be performed 
by the TSARC and OST's Office of Acquisition and Grant Management? 

Answer. Discussions are ongoing between the FAA and the Office of the 
Secretary to determine how OST and the TSARC will interact with FAA under 
the new Acquisition Management System. OST would like to develop an 
oversight structure that supports the goals of FAA's acquisition reform efforts, 
while still recognizing the Secretary's ultimate fiduciary responsibilities for the 
Department's programs. 

Until these discussions are completed, OST is evaluating its role and the 
appropriate level of Departmental participation and decision making on a 
program-by-program basis. However, the Department will need to continue to 
have: 1 ) ready access to FAA program information and 2) the discretion to 
continue to actively participate with FAA in program decision-making where 
key Departmental goals are impacted. Whether or not this is accomplished 
through the existing TSARC process, OST believes that it can structure its 
involvement to be consistent with FAA acquisition streamlining goals and 
enhance the Department's ability to achieve its overall goals within available 
resources. 



65 



SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

Question. P.L. 104-88, The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination 
Act of 1995, terminating the Interstate Commerce Commission, was effective 
January 1, 1996. In its place a Surface Transportation Board (STB) was 
created within DOT to administer remaining regulatory functions. What is the 
status of establishing STB and integrating its functions into DOT? 

Answer. The STB was established on January 1, 1996. Since that time the 
STB has been serving as an adjudicatory body with independent decision- 
making authority. The STB has a docket of approximately 500 cases. 
Because the decisional independence of the STB is explicitly expressed in the 
ICC Termination Act, the substantive functions of the STB, in accordance 
with Congressional intent, will not be integrated into DOT, although the STB 
apprises the Office of the Secretary of rulemakings and adjudications as they 
are served or published. At the same time, the STB and DOT have worked 
together closely to integrate administrative functions as appropriate. 

Question. How many personnel have transferred from the old ICC to 
DOT? To what DOT offices have these people been added? At what costs? 

Answer. From the ICC, 1 99 permanent employees were transferred on 
January 1, 1996, under a transfer of function process, to the newly created 
Board to perform the remaining regulatory responsibilities mandated in the 
ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA). From this number, 73 employees 
were separated under a reduction-in- force on January 6, 1996, because of 
limited appropriations, leaving 126 Board employees to perform the mission 
of the Board. 

An additional 61 permanent employees were transferred on January 1, 1996, 
under the transfer of function process, to the Federal Highway Administration 
and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to perform motor carrier licensing 
and certain other motor carrier activities provided under the ICCTA. 

The newly created Board operates pursuant to an FY 1 996 appropriation of 
$8.4 million. The personnel cost for the employees transferred to the Federal 
Highway Administration is covered by user fees collected in conjunction with 
the services those employees perform. 

Question. What changes have been necessary within DOT to carry out 
those functions that were transferred to the Department and have there been 
any unexpected policy, cost, personnel, or other issues associated with these 
changes? 

Answer. The STB was established as an independent agency within the 
Department. There have not been any unexpected policy, or personnel, issues 
associated with these changes; there has, however, been administrative costs 
related to STB that DOT has been forced to absorb. 



Question. How have these and any other unexpected issues been resolved? 

Answer. The STB and DOT have worked together cooperatively to ease 
any logistical challenges associated with a decisionally independent body 
organizationally housed within DOT. 

Question. How much additional money will be required to move STB into 
DOT and what will be the source of these funds? 

Answer. The STB has signed a lease through the General Services 
Administration (GSA) for space in a building at 20th and K Street, N.W., into 
which the Board will move on or around October 1, 1996. Any relocation 
costs incurred in moving the STB from the ICC building will be budgeted and 
paid by GSA as a forced relocation due to the impending closure and 
renovation of the ICC building. 

Question. What, if any, problems does DOT foresee in having an 
independent board within the Department and how will these problems be 
resolved? 

Answer. The Department and the STB have developed a good working 
relationship since the creation of the STB. At this time we do not anticipate 
problems resulting from having an independent board within the Department. 
Should difficulties arise, we would expect to resolve them cooperatively with 
the Board. 

Question. What role will DOT play in STB's regulatory activities and 
decisions? 

Answer. DOT may appear before the STB as a party in the STB's 
regulatory activities and decisions, just as DOT appeared before the ICC as a 
party in matters of concern to the Department. Any role or input that DOT 
may have in an STB regulatory activity or decision is carried out, like any 
other party, through a filing of public record. 

RAILROAD-SHIPPER ADVISORY COUNCIL 

Question. What role will DOT play on the Railroad-Shipper Advisory 
Council created by P.L. 104-88? 

Answer. P.L. 104-88 specifically designates the Secretary of 
Transportation as an ex officio non-voting member of the Council, along with 
the STB Members. Further, the Act requires the Council to submit its annual 
report to both the Chairman of the Board and the Secretary of Transportation 
for review. It also requires both the Chairman and the Secretary to submit 
comments on the accuracy of the information contained in the Council's 
annual report, the reasonableness of the positions and actions taken by the 
Council, and any other aspects of the Council's work. 



67 



Question. What criteria will be used to select Advisory Council members 
and what role will this Council play in terms of DOPs and STB's 
responsibilities? 

Answer. P.L. 104-88 sets forth the criteria that the Chairman of the Surface 
Transportation Board must use in the selection of members of the Council. 
Specifically, 15 members are to be appointed to represent a broad spectrum of 
the rail carrier and rail shipper industries. Nine members are to be appointed 
from senior executive officers of organizations engaged in railroad and rail 
shipping industries, and they are designated by the Act to be voting members 
of the Council. Of these nine members, at least four shall represent small 
shippers, and at least four shall represent Class II or III railroads. The 
remaining six members shall serve in a non-voting advisory capacity only. 
Three of the six non- voting members shall represent Class I railroads and three 
shall represent large shipper organizations. 

On April 19, 1996, the Chairman of the STB announced the selection of the 
15 members to the Council in accordance with the criteria. The following 
individuals have been appointed: 

- Randv G. Craver . Manager of Transportation, Coastal Coal Sales, Inc., 
Roanoke, Virginia; 

- Jarvis Haugeberg . President, North Dakota Grain Dealers Association, and 
General Manager, BTR Farmers Co-Op, Churches Ferry, North Dakota; 

- James Johnson . Traffic Manager, Empire Wholesale Lumber Company, 
Akron, Ohio; 

- Kevin Kaufman . Vice President-Transportation, Louis Dreyfus 
Corporation, Wilton, Connecticut; 

- Ronald A. Lane . Vice President and General Counsel, Illinois Central 
Railroad Company, Chicago, Illinois; 

- Anthony Lomang ino. Chief Executive Officer, Resource, Inc., and 
President, Star Recycling, Inc., New York, New York; 

- Kimberlv Madigan . Board of Directors, Emons Transportation Group, 
Inc., York, Pennsylvania; 

- John H. Marino . President, Rail America, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia; 

- James W. McClellan . Vice President-Strategic Planning, Norfolk Southern 
Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia; 

- J.C. Mclntvre. President and Chief Executive Officer, Dakota, Minnesota 
& Eastern Railroad Corporation, Brookings, South Dakota; 

- J. Fred Simpson . Executive Vice President, Montana Rail Line, Inc., 
Missoula, Montana; 

- Gregory T. Swienton . Senior Vice President, Consumer and Industrial 
Business Unit, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, Fort Worth, 
Texas; 

- Edwin E. Vigeaux. Rail Transportation Manager, Reagent Chemical, 
Houston, Texas; 



68 



- Sheryl W. Washington . Senior Manager of Public Affairs, United Parcel 
Service, Washington, D.C.; and 

- Edward Wytkind . Executive Director, Transportation Trades Department, 
AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C. 

The statute requires the Council to advise the Chairman of the Board and 
the Secretary with respect to rail transportation policy issues it considers 
significant, with particular attention to issues of importance to small shippers 
and small railroads, including car supply, rates, competition and effective 
procedures for addressing legitimate shipper and other claims. The Council is 
further charged by the statute to include in its annual report such 
recommendations as it considers appropriate with respect to the performance 
of the Secretary of Transportation and the Chairman of the Board as well as 
propose whatever regulatory or legislative relief it considers appropriate. 

Question. What additional legislative changes are necessary in light of P.L. 
104-88 and creation of the STB? 

Answer. The new statute seems to be working reasonably well so far. It 
has only been in place for 5 months, however, and we believe that more time 
and experience are needed to judge the overall results. We are not yet aware 
of any additional legislative changes that are needed, other than to resolve the 
source of funding, as proposed in the President's Budget as user fees for the 
STB to do its assigned work. 

EXPIRING LEGISLATION 

Question. Please list all accounts which need reauthorization legislation for 
fiscal year 1997. (Similar to the information provided on pages 226-227 of 
Senate hearing 104-76, part 3). 

Answer. A list of legislation requiring reauthorization in fiscal year 1997 
follows: 



ACCOUNTS REQUIRING AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION 



OffiPQoftbeSepr^tary 


Federal Railroad Administration 


None 


Grants to the National Railroad 




Passenger Corporation 


Office of Inspector General 


Northeast Corridor 


None 


Improvement Program 




o Rhode Island Rail 


United States Coast Guard 


Development 


Operating Expenses 


High-Speed Rail Trainsets and 


o Acquisition, Construction and 


Facilities 


Improvements 


o Railroad Research and 


o Environmental Compliance and 


Development 


Restoration 




o Alteration of Bridges 


National Highway Traffic Safety 


Reserve Training 


Administration 


Research, Development, Test 


Operations and Research 


and Evaluation 




o Retired Pay 


Federal Transit Administration 


Boat Safety 


Discretionary Grants 




Formula Grants 


Federal AvJatJQn AdmipjstrmiQn 




Operations 


St, Lawrenee Seaway Development 


o Facilities and Equipment 


Corporation 


Research, Engineering and 


None (however, the 


Development 


Administration intends to 


Grants-in-Aid for Airports 


submit legislation to convert 


o Administrative Services 


SLSDC to a Performance 


Franchise Fund 


Based Organization prior to FY 




1997) 


Federal Hiphwav Administration 




Federal-aid Highway 


Research and Special Programs 


State Infrastructure Banks 


Administration 




Pipeline Safety 




Surface Transportation Board 



o User Fees 



70 



AIRPORT GRANT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION 

Question. The Department was going to be submitting an aviation 
reauthorization bill that extended several of the programs, including facilities 
and equipment, operations, and research and development for several years, 
but would only include a one-year extension of the airport grants program. 
What is the rationale behind the one-year extension of the airport grants 
program, and why would the other accounts be extended longer? 

Answer. The Airport grant authority would be extended for only one year 
to provide an opportunity for a Select Panel on Airport Financing to evaluate 
airport development needs and assess alternative financing approaches to meet 
those needs. The era of declining budgets is a strong impetus to consider 
different means of providing for future airport development needs. The Select 
Panel, comprised of representatives of the aviation community and financial 
experts, will have 120 days to issue a report and recommendations to the 
Congress. The Panel's recommendations will provide information to be 
considered in developing legislation for the post- 1997 timeframe. 

MEASURING PERFORMANCE 

Question. What efforts are underway to develop national transportation 
performance indicators? 

Answer. A number of efforts looking at national transportation 
performance indicators have been undertaken as part of the National 
Transportation System (NTS) initiative. These include contract research 
reviewing the use of performance measures by the States in their statewide 
intermodal transportation plans and a state-of-the-art review and synthesis of 
transportation performance measurement. The Department also convened an 
internal staff working group to consider the issue and sponsored a conference 
to get outside views on the development of national transportation 
performance measures. As a continuation of the NTS initiative, we are 
currently working to identify appropriate follow on work on the development 
of national performance indicators. 

Question. What are the potential candidate measures for assessing the 
performance of the overall transportation network? 

Answer. The candidate measures we are trying to identify should address 
transportation system performance as it affects the users and the public at 
large. The particular areas in which we are trying to identify indicators are: 
transportation effects on the economy, accessibility, national defense and 
emergency readiness, safety, and the environment. The principal challenges 
are that there is little measurable information on the economic and societal 
impacts of transportation and what is available is for individual modes, rather 
than for transportation as the product of an integrated system. We hope to be 



71 



able to identify a candidate list of indicators in a report on the National 
Transportation System late this summer. 

Question. How could transportation performance measures be used to 
direct tax dollars to programs that produce results? 

Answer. To the extent that performance measures address the 
"outcomes" which our programs are trying to influence, like safety or 
environmental quality, the measures themselves reflect things that are valued 
by the public. As agencies set performance goals and targets for these 
outcomes, decision makers can weigh the relative value of these goals, along 
with the cost of the programs and an assessment of the likelihood that the 
agency can actually achieve the goals, to help decide where to invest 
resources. Within an area like safety, common measures can make it easier to 
compare the relative value of goals across different programs. Across broader 
outcome areas like safety vs. economic growth, the judgments of relative value 
to the public are largely political ones. This rather straightforward approach, 
however, will be complicated somewhat by the varying degrees of influence 
agencies have on the outcomes, and by differences in the resource- 
intensiveness of the programs (operational programs typically cost more tax 
dollars than regulatory programs). The first difficulty can be addressed by 
program evaluations - studies which try to establish the linkage between 
actions and results, considering all the external factors and unintended effects 
of the programs. The second issue can be addressed by accounting for not just 
the Federal costs of a program, but the total public costs. 

Question. If performance indicator results were linked to funding, how 
could the validity of the underlying data be assured? 

Answer. Certainly the integrity of the data collection and the 
measurement of performance can potentially be biased or "gamed" if the 
measures are linked to funding. There are some built-in checks and balances 
for this, but there also needs to be careful attention paid to verification and 
validation. First, if an agency does not achieve its goals, that may mean either 
an ineffective program or a need for more resources to accomplish the goals. 
And that determination can only be made after examining the reasons for 
failure. There are a variety of actions an agency can take to assure the validity 
and credibility of the data. Using independent data sources can help protect 
against bias in data reporting. Peer review within the agency and among 
related agencies, together with the normal process of program assessments by 
stakeholders and public interest groups, can provide credibility checks. And 
certainly use of the data, particularly by those who collect and enter the data, 
to manage our programs and target our activities, will improve the quality of 
the data. 



72 



Question. Besides using performance indicators to allocate resources, 
what other uses could be made of the indicators? 

Answer. We believe that performance indicators can be extremely 
important in the policy development and program management areas. 
Performance indicators do not provide definitive answers by themselves but 
can provide early signs suggesting that objectives are or are not being met. 
This should trigger a more detailed look at areas of concern to determine 
whether or not there is a problem and if and how it might be addressed by the 
Department. In many ways, that process is the essence of policy development 
and program management, and good performance indicators should improve 
the effectiveness of those activities by allowing earlier attention to potential 
problem areas. 

Question. What data collection burden would be associated with the 
development and use of national transportation performance indicators? 

Answer. Since we are only now beginning to identify the indicators, it 
is too early to be very specific about the data collection burdens. However, it 
is clear that there is a significant dearth of transportation information that is 
national in scale and multimodal in perspective. Moreover, most performance 
information does not address the economic and social outcomes that are of 
interest. Our approach to dealing with these shortcomings would be to 
coordinate the efforts of policy staff and modal administrations with the 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics in helping to shape our data collection 
efforts. Clearly, we will use available data as intensively as possible. Where 
new information is needed, we will look to existing data collection efforts and 
build on that base. In particular, we see the Commodity Flow and American 
Travel Surveys as being a source of the kind of data that is needed to give us 
the multimodal and national perspectives that we seek. 

OFFICE FUNDING REQUEST 

Question. Please provide the Committee a comparison of fiscal years 1995, 
1996 and the 1997 budget request for each office within the Office of the 
Secretary (similar to that provided on pages 229-230 of last year's hearing 
104-76). The Committee realizes that the Department has not asked for an 
office-by-office appropriation for the Office of the Secretary. However, please 
display how those funds were distributed in fiscal year 1996 and how they will 
be distributed in fiscal year 1997. 

Answer. A funding table follows: 



78 



(dollars in thousands) 



Office 



FY 1995 


FY 1996 


FY 1997 


Actual 


Estimate 


Request 


8,185 


8,282 


8,575 


2,720 


2,475 


2,621 


8,308 


8,407 


8,214 


5,423 


5,591 


5,606 


1,807 


1,790 


1,875 


21,888 


19,963 


20,189 


1,410 


1,467 


1,496 


1,490 


1,472 


1,514 


552 


554 


630 


979 


1,093 


1,046 


952 


1,118 


1,191 


607 


640 


682 


4,616 








974 


1,048 


980 


1,913 


415 





7H. 


m 


, 757 



General Counsel 

Transportation Policy 

Aviation & International Affairs 

Budget and Programs 

Governmental Affairs 

Administration 

Public Affairs 

Immediate Office of the Secretary 

Office of the Deputy Secretary 

Intermodalism 

Executive Secretariat 

Contract Appeals Board 

Civil Rights 

Small & Disadvantaged Business Util. 

Minority Business Resource Center 

Intelligence & Security 

Total 



62,538 



55,027 



55,376 



ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE 



Question. Please update in tabular form the communities that would 
receive essential air service under the administration's fiscal year 1997 
proposal. In the table, please include the estimated mileage to the nearest hub, 
the number of enplanements per day at that point, the annual subsidy rate 
projected for FY 1997, and the calculation of the subsidy per passenger. 
Please also include the amount of funding that would be used under the 
administration's request, long-term Alaska rates, expected subsidy rate 
adjustments and carrier selections in fiscal year 1997, and estimated FY 1997 
hold-in compensation. 

Answer. The information is provided on the following table: 



74 



FY 1997 EAS Budget Projections 1/ 



Kingman 

Page 

Prescott 

ARKANSAS 
El Dorado/Camden 
Harrison 
JonestMro 

CALIFORNIA 
Crescent City 
Merced 
VIsalia 

COLORADO 
Cortez 



Estimated 
Mileage to 
Nearest Hub 


Average Daily 
Enplanements 
at EAS Point 


Current Annual 
Subsidy Rates 
<Mav 1. 1996> 


Subsidy 

per 

Passenqe 


103 
274 
103 


10.5 
23.3 
37.8 


$94,663 
$129,560 
$94,663 


$14.40 
$8.87 
$4.00 


108 
139 
71 


11.1 
10.0 
10.5 


$474,453 
$775,862 
$474,453 


$68.15 
$124.10 
$71.98 


233 
118 
202 


15.2 
22.1 
17.0 


$151,450 
$182,121 
$182,121 


$15.91 
$13.14 
$17.16 


253 
162 


27.0 
4.4 


$92,976 
$190,987 


$5.49 
$69.93 



HAWAII 
Kamuela 



IOWA 
Ottumwa 



KANSAS 
Dodge City 
Garden City 
Goodtand 
Great Bend 
Hays 

Liberal/Guymon 
Topel(a 



156 
209 
190 
116 
175 
162 
76 



14.9 
25.4 
3.0 
6.0 
16.6 
10.5 
22.9 



$113,693 
$190,987 
$190,987 
$113,693 
$113,693 
$190,987 
$102,362 



$12.19 
$12.01 
$102.79 
$30.24 
$10.92 
$28.95 
$7.13 



MAINE 
Augusla/Waterville 2/ 
Bar Harbor 
Rockland 



71 
164 
79 



21.5 
16.9 
14.8 



$288,516 
$259,243 
$259,243 



$42.92 
$24.57 
$28.02 



MINNESOTA 
Fairmont 
Fergus Falls 
Mankato 



153 
185 
75 



3.9 
13.5 
5.1 



$247,771 
$146,508 
$247,771 



$100.39 
$17.38 
$77.04 



MISSOURI 
Cape Girardeau 
Fort Leonard Wood 
KIrfcsville 



20.4 
14.5 
8.5 



$164,027 
$196,606 
$224,382 



$12.85 
$21.69 
$42.24 



MONTANA 
Glasgow 
Glendive 
Havre 
Lewistown 
Miles City 
Sidney 
Wolf Point 



279 
223 
251 
129 
145 
273 
295 



$303,956 
$511,909 
$439,972 
$439,972 
$511,909 
$511,909 
$303,956 



$76.07 
$308.19 
$143.41 
$189.32 
$257.76 
$113.86 
$103.70 



75 



Chadron 
Hastings 
Kearney 
McCook 



242 


2.7 


$346,863 


$203.68 


301 


2.7 


$346,863 


$207.33 


160 


2.8 


$317,496 


$183.95 


186 


10.1 


$317,496 


$50.04 


259 


3.3 


$657,724 


$322.73 



NEVADA 
Ely 



NEW MEXICO 
Alamogordo/Holloman AFB 
Clovis 
Silver City/Hurley/Deming 



NEW YORK 




Massena 


149 


Ogdensburg 


127 


NORTH DAKOTA 




Devils Lake 


403 


Dickinson 


313 


Jamestown 


304 


OKLAHOMA 




Enid 


91 


Ponca City 


88 


PENNSYLVANIA 




Oil City/Franklin 


91 


SOUTH DAKOTA 




Brookings 


211 


Mitchell 


245 


Yankton 


159 


TEXAS 




Brownwood 


153 


UTAH 




Cedar City 


257 


Moab 


241 


Vernal 


171 


VIRGINIA 




Staunton 


108 


WASHINGTON 




Ephrata/Moses Lake 


122 


WEST VIRGINIA 




Beckley 


186 


Princeton/Bluefield 


145 


WYOMING 




Worland 


164 



12.7 
15.0 
11.2 


$166,705 
$200,332 
$263,458 


$20.91 
$21.31 
$37.62 


20.5 
10.0 


$198,810 
$198,810 


$15.51 
$31.72 


12.4 
11.9 
10.3 


$208,119 
$141,502 
$208,119 


$26.81 
$18.95 
$32.20 


12.0 
13.7 


$301,400 
$301,400 


$40.28 
$35.24 



12.0 
15.6 



$89,916 



5.6 


$247,771 


$70.61 


3.6 


$247,771 


$110.32 


9.0 


$268,875 


$47.78 



$372,426 



191 


$292,882 


$24.55 


6.0 


$367,713 


$98.69 


19.2 


$194,466 


$16.18 



$137,229 
$137,229 



$10.80 



$18.25 
$14.09 



Subtotal of long-term non-Alaska rates 

Long-term Alaska rates 

Six Mesa Communities 

Ft Leonard Wood 

Kamuela 

Staunton 



$16,952,183 
$2,058,412 
$1,000,000 
$100,000 
$80,000 
$40,000 
$125,000 



76 



Commuter Safety Rule 
Rate Increases 
Total 



$144,405 
SI .422000 
$21,922,000 



I for a numtier 



1/ The above list of communities is based on currently available data, and is subject to change I 

of reasons. Subsidy rates change as their two-year rate ternis expire throughout the year. In j 

air carriers submit passenger traffic data on a quarterly basis. Changes In both subsidy rates and traffic 

levels will of course change subsidy-per-passenger calculations. Further, some communities currently 

receiving subsidy-free service may require subsidy in the future while some currently subsidized communities 

may attain profitability and no longer require subsidy. Finally, Hub designations are recalculated annually 

and published by the FAA in the Airport Activities Statistics. 

2/ Enplanements based on less than a full year's passenger data annualized. 



Question. In a similar tabular fashion, list the six communities which 
would no longer be eligible for subsidy under the administration's proposal, 
since they are within 70 miles of an FAA-designated small hub. Include their 
estimated miles to the nearest small hub, the enplanements per day, their 
annual subsidy rate, their subsidy per passenger. 

Answer. . 



1 1 


Small 


Enplanements 




I Estimated 


Hub 


Per Day at 






I _l Mileage to 


or 


EAS Point 


Current Annual 


Communitv 


State { Nearest Hub 


iet 


(YE 3/31/95) 




Hot Springs 

Keene 

Anniston 

Tuscaloosa 

Rutland 

Watertown 


AR 54 
NH 56 
i AL 61 
■ AL 61 
VT 67 
NY 69 


S 

s" 
s ' 


14.9 i $374,739 

72 "J_ $3 12^202 

"8.5 1 $494,816 " 

32:r 1 $r28ji6r " 


s ^ 
s 


10.4 i $312,202 
15.8 '"^ $132,540 



Question. What amount of unobligated funds remain or are projected to 
remain at the end of fiscal year 1996 in the Essential Air Service program? 
Please break out the unobligated amount in the trust fund and the unobligated 
amount in general fiinds. 

Answer. The trust fund account currently has unobligated balances that 
carried forward in fiscal year 1996 of $1,488,280. General fund balances that 
carried forward in fiscal year 1996, $1,133,373, are proposed for rescission in 
the fiscal year 1997 President's budget submission. 

GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS 



Question. Please provide for the record in both dollars and square footage 
for each modal administration, the fiscal years 1995 and 1996 enacted and FY 
1 997 request for rental payments, similar to the table found on page 23 1 of 
Senate hearing 104-76, part 3. 

Answer. The information is provided on the following table: 



77 



GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS 1/ 
[Dollars and square feet in thousands] 





Fiscal Year 199: 
enacted 


5 2/ 

Fiscal Year 
1995 GSA 
milings 


Fiscal Year 1996 
projected 

Square 
Eunding Feet 


Fiscj 
Eundins 


»1 Year 19 
request 


Adminislcation 




Square 
Eefil 


Square 
Esfil 


FHWA 


[18,044] 


[987] 


[16,388] 


[17.192] 


[1,060] 


[18,225] 


[1,063] 


NHTSA 


4,716 


155 


4,278 


4,393 


219 


4,438 


207 


FRA 


3,363 


135 


2.979 


3.094 


160 


3.192 


160 


FTA 


3,332 


109 


3.078 


3,237 


151 


3.350 


144 


FAA 


75,820 


4.374 


68.653 


69,743 


4,223 


69,550 


4,189 


USCG 


42,281 


2,347 


39,710 


40.644 


2,564 


38,595 


2,486 


SLSDC 


181 


6 


163 


195 


9 


193 


9 


RSPA 


2,378 


77 


2.217 


2.039 


102 


2,270 


102 


OIG 


2,579 


94 


2.207 


2.267 


113 


2,479 


111 


OST 


9,679 


1,440 


12.627 


12,942 


614 


13,013 


597 


BTS 


90 


3 


161 


314 


16 


501 


18 


OST Rental 
Payments to GSA 


[144,419] 




[136.074] 


[138.868] 




[137.581] 




SUBTOTAL 


144,419 


8,740 


136.074 


138.868 


8,171 


137,581 


8.023 


RESCISSIONS 


(7.445) 














FHWA 


18,044 


987 


16,389 


17,192 


1,060 


18,225 


1,063 


TOTAL 
(Excludes MARAD: 


155,018 
1 


9.727 


152.463 


156,060 


9,231 


155,806 


9,086 



1/ Enacted as a single account under the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The budget 
proposes appropriations language which directs the reimbursement of FHWA GSA from the FHWA 
LGOE account to the consolidated account. 

2/ FY 1995 Office of the Secretary of Transportation funding of $9,679 reflects a $3 M credit for rate 
reductions for all administrations headquarters space as reported to Congress by GSA. However, each 
administration received their share of the credit on the actual bills. 



3/ FY 1996 requirements are best represented by the projected billings. There is no distribution by 
mode of the enacted amounts of $152,885 and 8.585 square feet because they are less than our existing 
inventor)'. An increase in square footage for most modes over the FY 1995 enacted level is due to the 
redistribution of each mode's share of headquarters parking from OST to the mode. There is an 
overall reduction in square feet. 



78 



POLITICAL APPOINTEES 

Question. Please provide the Committee a listing for fiscal years 1994, 
1995 and 1996 and projected for 1997 displaying the number of political and 
presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation by mode, and the 
associated costs. Compare for fiscal years 1994, 1995 and 1996 the number of 
presidential appointees by agency or account versus the cap of 1 1 that was 
included in the appropriations general provision language. 

Answer. The Department is well below the cap of 110 for political 
appointees, which includes Presidential, Non-Career SES, and Schedule C 
appointments. The number of political appointees varies throughout the year, 
but we will not exceed the 110 cap in FY 1997. Following is a chart which 
lists political appointees by agency and by appointment for 1996, 1995 and 
1994. 



79 



ii 



S I 



o r- 

O' r-T 

5 \^ 



\o r- o o 



r< o 

0\ o 






<M — ^ 



in Q 



3; UU 0^ 



r- o^ o^ 



00 00 o >/^ 

T 00 ^ c 

<ri — ri 00 

r-i' «< r-T o-' 

r) -o u^ vo 

O O »0 'T 

2 






2 -a 
v < 



e I 



53 « S "d e 



= 2 = s 






z. < 



u- c/) U 5 oi < 



■^,8. 

^ Q. 

I ;f 
£^ 

t- CO 
^^ e/) 



r^- r^- r^- 


00- 




.2 1 


Ov 


£ 




si 


1 






SI 








^1 


iS 1. § 


U 




J "5 


III 


■< 




-2 S 


< 1/5 < 






.2 .s 


2 S U 






^:- 


III 




UJ 


II 



80 



Question. Please list for the Committee how the reception and 
representation funds were spent for fiscal years 1994, 1995 and 1996, by 
agency, and the estimated distribution for FY 1997. 

Answer. 

Obligations of Receptions and Representation Funds 









FY '96 


FY '97 


Agency 


FY '94 


FY '95 


Projected 


Estimate 


FHWA 


1,108 


438 


900 


900 


NHTSA 


54 


323 


1,850 


1,850 


FRA 


369 


398 


450 


450 


FTA 


137 


1,530 


300 


300 


FAA 


10,998 


13,886 


7,950 


7,950 


USCG 


536 


380 


2,150 


2,150 


MARAD 


1,052 


503 


2,150 


2,150 


RSPA 


2,437 


201 


300 


300 


BTS 


375 





200 


200 


OST 


28,390 


21,212 


23,750 


23,750 


Total DOT 


45,456 


37,494 


40,000 


23,750 



EMPLOYEE BONUSES AND AWARDS 

Question. Please provide the Committee a listing, by agency, which shows 
the amount of employee bonuses and awards for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 
estimated for fiscal year 1996, and requested for fiscal year 1997. 

Answer. 

Expenditures for Employee Performance Awards 









Pool Allocation 


Allocation 


FY 1994 


FY \99^ 


for FY 1996* 


OST 


816,495 


398,791 


500,037 


OIG 


326,928 


140,997 


185,289 



81 



USCG 


1,171,725 


1,671,672 


1,713,461 


FAA 


8,423,024 


20,485,113 


20,897,137 


FHWA 


2,531,270 


1,325,546 


1,298,544 


FRA 


396,695 


282,936 


306,729 


NHTSA 


428,851 


280,806 


303,738 


FTA 


325,690 


219,442 


238,945 


SLSDC 


54,464 


56,495 


48,814 


RSPA ** 


36,533 


38,235 


39,468 


BTS 


6,972 


13,981 


22,913 



* Represents the maximum possible expenditure 

* * Excludes awards for Transportation Service Center 

NOTES: 

Excludes awards for Maritime Administration 
FY 97 figures not available 

EMPLOYEE BONUSES AND AWARDS 

Question. Within the Office of the Secretary, please provide the 
Committee a listing by office with name of personnel and amount provided for 
staff bonuses in fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996. 

Answer. The information requested is provided on the following table. 
You will find a distribution, by each fiscal year, showing the employee name, 
organizational code, and award amount. Also attached is an organizational 
listing for the Office of the Secretary that will serve as a translation table for 
the numeric code associated with the individual record. 



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

BONUSES AND AWARD PAYMENTS 

FY 1994 

OFFICE 



Immediate Office of the Secretary 



Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary 



Executive Secretariat 



Board of Contract Appeals 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


ALLEN, DOUGLAS 


$1,360 


BENNETT, DENNIS 


1,223 


CASE, JULIE M 


484 


CRALEY, JOYCE R 


512 


DANIELS, BRENDA 


887 


DILLARD, IDA C 


404 


DUNCAN, SUSAN F 


952 


GAITHER, SHIRLE 


280 


GALLAGHER, BRIA 


278 


HARRIS, NANCY C 


1,088 


KING, LORELEA 


225 


MCDONALD, MINNI 


630 


MOORE. CAROLYN 


735 


PENTTI, FRANK W 


5,590 


PISANI, ANN M 


426 


ROMO, PETER E 


278 


SMITH, DONNA R 


1,421 


WOOD, WILLIAM M 


904 


BURROUGHS. BARB 


740 


HILLIARD. GLORI 


776 


SAUNDERS, CONTO 


108 


BATTLE, ARTHUR 


259 


BURFORD. PEGGY 


378 


CONWAY, MACHELL 


337 


DENISON. AMY B 


117 


EGHTEDARI, SARA 


1.182 


FARGO, ANTOINET 


388 


GREENE. MARIE R 


205 


LORD. LISA LYNN 


477 


RAGSDALE. CONST 


1.246 


RATCLIFFE. CARO 


761 


SMITH. JEANNE E 


1,561 


STROZIER. PRISC 


852 


THOMAS. KATHLEE 


875 


WILLIAMS, BETTY 


378 


HIGGS. SHIRLEY 


755 


MILLINE. GERALD 


655 


CAPUANO. JOSEPH 


1,183 


DILVER. ANGELA 


606 


FRANCO. GERARDO 


793 


HARRIS, BRENDA 


794 


HENDRICKS, MARI 


914 


HODGE. PAT L 


694 


HOWARD. GLORIA 


686 


JACKSON. ARTHUR 


846 



83 



OFFICE 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization (Cont'd) 



Office of Civil Rights 



Office of Commercial Space Transportation 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


MARTIN, PATRICI 


258 


MOORE, WILL T 


1,631 


SOLOMON, EMILY 


288 


AUSTIN, JOSEPH 


1,385 


BERKOSKI, MARIL 


382 


COATES, ROBERT 


1,732 


DAVIS, WILLIAM 


1,321 


GRAHAM. ELLA L 


694 


GRANT, DENISE E 


232 


GREER. ROOSEVEL 


1,732 


HARRISON, MAE E 


164 


HART, DARYL A 


515 


MARIANI, LUIGI 


397 


NORMAN, JOYCE V 


1,071 


NORMENT. HANLEY 


520 


PLATER. JOHN 


397 


POLINGER, MARIL 


229 


SUAZO, PETER A 


1.543 


THOMAS, DORSEY 


1.212 


WILLIAMS, ALBER 


778 


WILLIAMS. WILBU 


420 


WILLSON, CLEOTR 


941 


WILSON, HERBERT 


471 


WILSON, PATRICE 


185 


BODDIE, SHARON 


298 


BRINKMAN. CHARL 


924 


FLORES. CAROLE 


820 


FREED, GWENDOLY 


485 


GRESS, RONALD K 


1.605 


HARRIS. ROSEMAR 


588 


HIMARAS. GEORGE 


326 


INGLE. CAROL L 


225 


JACKSON. TERRIE 


258 


KALANSKY. GARY 


298 


KELLEY. CAROL A 


941 


KLINE. CHARLES 


520 


LANG. DEREK E 


959 


MITCHELL. RUBEN 


793 


PARKER. BRENDA 


820 


RAPPAPORT. CARL 


1.732 


REPCHECK. JAMES 


716 


SCOTT. RICHARD 


1,197 


STRINE. LINDA H 


1.209 


WELLS. DAMON R 


833 



84 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


Office of Intelligence and Security 


ALLEN, ELIZABET 


258 




BOWEN. KIMBERLY 


673 




CALLEN, DOUGLAS 


953 




DALY, JOHN B 


1,525 




FALVEY, THOMAS 


904 




MEYER, SUSAN F 


334 




POWELL, LEO T J 


453 




QUEEN, GERTRUDE 


860 




RENWICK. JACK A 


5,090 




SHARP, SHARAN D 


1,265 




SHUMAKER, JEFFR 


793 


Office of Public Affairs 


BALDWIN, BARBAR 


606 




CHALLIS, SUE A 


525 




COOK, JEFFERY D 


147 




CULLINAN, JAMES 


403 




DANKERS. LORIE 


315 




GORDON, KIRK A 


147 




GRAY, CONSTANCE 


852 




GRAY, SHEILA D 


561 




JACKSON. RONDA 


455 




MARX. ROBERT S 


5,365 




MATRIGALI, ELAI 


550 




PARIS. HAROLD 


825 




PEE, SHEILA A 


621 




ROBISON. WYNOLA 


1.475 




TAYLOR, NAOMI D 


591 




TOWLES, KEVIN S 


403 




WILEY, REGINA A 


100 


Assistant Secretary for Budget and 






Programs 


ANDREWS. GEARY 


2.127 




CLASEN. MARC T 


1.044 




COLLINS, KATHER 


5,365 




DAVIS, DOUGLAS 


188 




DIABATE. BRENDA 


428 




ETHERIDGE. DORO 


320 




FEINGOLD. DAVID 


663 




FERRELL. BARBAR 


416 




FROMER.JULIAA 


1.237 




GOLDSTEIN. MYRO 


739 




GOTTESMAN. RUTH 


642 




HARRIS. CYNTHIA 


700 




HEIMANN. JOHN J 


1.102 




JACKSON. KAREN 


416 




JOHANNESSEN. RO 


752 




KOUBEK. MARTIN 


230 




LAWHEAD. MERRY 


2.127 




LITTY. STEVEN C 


1.530 



85 



OFFICE 

Assistant Secretary for Budget and 
Programs (Cont'd) 



Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 
International Affairs 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


MAGURN, JOHN T 


1,636 


MARRS. KATHLEEN 


1,882 


MCDONALD, GEORG 


5.365 


MOGA, WILLIAM J 


1.044 


SALE, JAMES E 


406 


STIEGER, PAUL R 


334 


STULTS, ERIC W 


584 


TOWNES. DABNEY 


1,800 


VICKS. MARVIN H 


496 


WATSON, CELESTI 


200 


WILLIAMS, EVA M 


542 


WORZALA, DAVID 


898 


ADAMS. KEVIN J 


714 


ALLEN. BERNESTI 


1.039 


ANDREWS. CAROLI 


269 


ARCHER. TORLAND 


743 


BAKER. GWENDOLY 


322 


BELENKY. PETER 


498 


BENNETT, JACK M 


848 


BENNETT, RANDAL 


2,078 


BERTRAM. WILLIA 


734 


BINGHAM, GORDON 


1.748 


BINGHAM, TERESA 


2.006 


BINGHAM, WILLIA 


2.077 


BLOUNT. LINDA C 


266 


BOWSER. PAUL B 


866 


BOYD. WILLIAM C 


1.039 


BRANSON. ADRIEN 


153 


BROWN. BLONDIE 


844 


BROWN. YVONNE H 


954 


BURCH. PATRICIA 


313 


CALKIN. MARY K 


1.157 


CAMERON. BARBAR 


1,124 


CANNY. JOSEPH F 


5.590 


CARMODY. TIMOTH 


844 


CLAXTON. DIONNE 


153 


COATES. EUGENIA 


1.256 


COLDREN. CAROLY 


2.078 


CUNNINGHAM. MEL 


614 


DAILEY, VICTORI 


861 


DARBY. L M III 


1.812 


DAUMA. Bb 1 1 Y LO 


430 


DAVIS. JANET A 


1.640 


DAVIS. PHYLLIS 


303 


DAVIS. STEPHEN 


671 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 






International Affairs (Cont'd) 


DEAN, ROGER L 


964 




DECARME, DAVID 


880 




DEMAS, VIRGINIA 


1,058 




DEVANY, DENNIS 


1,852 




DIETRICH, LUTHE 


770 




DIMODICA, NANCY 


662 




DOCKERY, CHIONE 


153 




DUNNIGAN. BARBA 


375 




EBERSOLE. NANCY 


884 




ENTY, LUVERN 


820 




GALSTER. JEANNE 


764 




GANSLE, JAMES J 


884 




GARDNER, JAMES 


858 




GAYNES, JEFFREY 


2,078 




GEDRA, FRANCES 


861 




GEORGE. MARY D 


313 




GONZALES. LETAN 


153 




GORSKY, SUSAN E 


748 




GRETCH, PAUL L 


5.365 




HILL. SONYA A 


248 




IGO, DONALD J 


1,039 




JACKSON, SHELTO 


5,365 




JOHNSON, DIANE 


652 




JOHNSON-ARTIS. 


266 




JUSTICE, CHRIST 


653 




KAZIMLZIAA 


276 




KELLER, L SCOTT 


397 




KIENER. MARY A 


273 




KING. DELORES A 


681 




KISER. JOHN H 


1.016 




KONHEIM, ARNOLD 


1,032 




LAMEIRO. MARIA 


1,812 




LANE, MICHAEL A 


777 




LANGELAN. MARTH 


838 




LASTER, IRA JR 


2,078 




LAWRENCE, LUCIA 


759 




LAWSON. LINDA L 


920 




LAZZARO. PATRIC 


359 




USER, FLORIZEL 


974 




LOUGEE, DUANE A 


999 




LOUGHLIN. RICHA 


2,078 




LUNDELL, LINDA 


724 




MALLALIEU, CHAR 


1,705 




MARCHESSAULT, T 


838 




MARSHALL. JUDIT 


954 




MARTINEZ. SHIRL 


248 



87 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 






International Affairs (Cont'd) 


MARVICH, M DENN 


785 




MCCAMANT, WILLI 


826 




MCCANN, CHARLES 


2,130 




MCDERMOTT, SUSA 


2,078 




MCDOWELL, DESTA 


1,039 




MCGUIRE. CHARLE 


1,039 




MICOZZI. MARTIN 


938 




MILAN. REGIS P 


2,078 




MILLER. JOHN D 


1.812 




MITTELHOLTZ. CA 


1,768 




MODESITT, DAVID 


874 




MOORE, SYLVIA L 


1,021 




MOSLEY. SHIRLEY 


743 




MYLES, JANE E 


386 




NEW. JAMES H II 


5.365 




NIEDERBERGER, E 


835 




NUTTER, ROBERT 


2,078 




O'LEARY, JEANNE 


805 




PANDOHIE, CLAUD 


218 




PARKER, ELIZABE 


2.078 




PEAK, JOHN T 


950 




PEGRAM, ANNA L 


375 




PERRY, GREGERY 


276 




PETT. MARY IREN 


1,039 




PHILLIPS. LAURE 


2.078 




PRETE, LINDA L 


1.157 




PROUTY, KEITH 


1,037 




QUAY, JOHN L 


989 




RASTATTER, EDWA 


2.078 




RHODES. DIANE Z 


269 




RICHARDS, DAVID 


884 




ROBINSON, ROY L 


248 




ROBINSON. STUAR 


1,039 




ROSENOW. PETER 


1.039 




SAMPLE. KEVIN B 


364 




SANFORD. VIRGIN 


153 




SCHMIDT. JOHN P 


884 




SEALS. TAMMI D 


633 




SERIG. HOWARD W 


863 




SHANGRAW. KEITH 


821 




SHAPIRO. STEPHE 


643 




SHAW. LILLIE 


289 




SINGLETON. ELOI 


745 




SMITH. BELINDA 


785 




SMITH. SHELITA 


753 




SORENSON. RUTH 


688 



88 



DOLLAR 
OFFICE NAME AMOUNT 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs (Cont'd) STEIN, ROBERT I 884 

STEVENSON, LORE 954 

STREET, MARY 1,748 

SWERDLOFF, CARL 1,039 

SZEKELY, CAROL 1.768 

TAJl-FAROUKI, A 558 

TANNIR. ANIS A 674 

TATUM. KATHERIN 248 

TAYLOR, RONALE 166 

THOMAS, PATRICI 2,078 

THURBER, ROBERT 5.365 

TRILLING, DONAL 5,365 

TRUHAN, ALLEN S 1,721 

VANDERVOORT, CH 1,037 

WASHINGTON, BEL 218 

WEIL, RAYMOND W 2,078 

WEINER, EDWARD 2,078 

WELLINGTON, GEO 1,986 

' WIENER, ALLEN J 759 

WIGGERS. GEORGE 2,078 

WILBUR, EDWARD 827 

WILEY. EVANS E 1,768 

WILLIAMS. GAZEL 211 

WILLIAMS, MARY 844 

WILSON. DELLA 218 

WOODS, CAROL AN 1.189 

WOODWARD. CLIFF 1,900 

Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs BLUMENSTEIN, JU 485 

BREWER, NANCY E 635 

BROWN. BRENDAW 833 

DECKER. HOYTE B 1.733 

GILCHRIST. LIND 337 

GOODMAN, MARGUE 352 

GREEN, JOYCE E 334 

JONES. SANDRA S 382 

KELLY, TIMOTHY 635 

MINNERY. PHYLLI 1,183 

MOORE, NANCY M 426 

RIVERA-GLAGOLA, 875 

SEXTON-FLATOW. 348 

SPOLLEN, MICHAE 635 

STRICKMAN. NORM 1.456 

THORNE. BEVERLY 430 

WITT. DEAN A 1.473 

ZOK. CAROLYN RO 1,023 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


General Counsel 


ADAMS, MYRNA F 


754 




AMES, ANGELIA 


110 




ANDREWS, DALE C 


1,732 




ASHBY, ROBERT C 


1,732 




BAPTIST, LATONY 


257 




BATES, MICHAEL 


650 




BATTAGLIA, NANC 


630 




BLOCH, PETER M 


1,636 




BOECK, CHARLOTT 


1,325 




BRONNER, JEANNE 


1,050 




BROOKS, JOSEPH 


1,732 




BROOKS, LORETTA 


275 




BURG, STEVEN M 


311 




CARLSON, TERENC 


630 




CHESLEY, PATRIC 


323 




CLEMONS, GLORIA 


1,026 




DANN. JAMES R 


1,732 




DASHIELL, MARGA 


783 




DAVID, ELAINE 


1.509 




DAWSON, DENISE 


408 




DE CELL, JANE B 


1,533 




DIEDERICH. BERN 


650 




DONELAN, CLARE 


1,643 




EISNER, NEIL R 


6,414 




FARBMAN, STEVEN 


710 




FERGUSON, JAYME 


185 




FERGUSON, ROBER 


300 




FREEMAN. JOSE N 


110 




GEIER. PAUL M 


5,590 




GILLETTE, JOAN 


596 




GOLDNER, ROBERT 


1,732 




HAMILTON, HARRI 


528 




HARPER, SHARON 


752 




HATTEN, CYNTHIA 


575 




HEARNS. MARILYN 


555 




HOLMSTRUP, MARK 


596 




HRIBAL. AMY S 


778 




JOHNSON. CAROLY 


259 




JONES. LOUISE M 


110 




JOOST, ROBERT H 


650 




KAYLOR, PHYLLIS 


690 




KESSLER. NANCY 


950 




KLOTHE, ROBERT 


1.732 




LANGAN-FEIRSON. 


1,643 




LARSEN, PAUL B 


300 




LAZARUS, ROSALI 


300 




LEHMAN, DAYTON 


1.643 



90 



OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


General Counsel (Cont'd) 


LONG. PAMELA M 


409 




LOWRY. NICHOLAS 


704 




MAHONEY. THOMAS 


602 




MCCLURE, DAMON 


295 




MCGUIGAN, KATHL 


1,377 




MEEKS. ROBERT R 


750 




METOYER. STEPHE 


710 




METZGER. RUTH D 


840 




MILLARD, ALEXAN 


442 




MILLS, BARBARA 


400 




MORGAN, MONA E 


692 




MYERS, LAWRENCE 


850 




NOLAN. MICHAEL 


300 




PARSON, DEBORAH 


325 




PEARSON, LOUISE 


110 




PETRIE. JOANNE 


1,510 




PITTMAN, LAVERN 


475 




PLOCKI. PETER J 


1,416 




PRATER.THERESA 


110 




PROPHET, SANDRA 


608 




RADLOFF, GWYNET 


959 




RANDOLPH. DENIS 


499 




RAY. THOMAS L 


1,732 




REGISTER. WILLI 


750 




RIPKIN, RUTH H 


683 




ROSEN. DEBRA J 


1,171 




ROSENBERG. ESTA 


590 




ROSS. ANN E 


444 




ROSS. ROBERT 1 


960 




RUPP. JEFF D 


1,171 




SAUNDERS-OWINGS 


539 




SCHWARZKOPF, PE 


950 




SMITH. PAUL SAM 


520 




SNYDER. PATRICI 


1.608 




TOCHEN. DAVID K 


1.555 




TOURTELLOT. CHR 


1.534 




TREADWELL, IRMA 


375 




TREJO. LAURA 1 


596 




TRULY-JACKSON. 


499 




WAGNER, WILLIAM 


950 




WALLACE. DARLEN 


525 




WEST, CLYDE D 


255 




WEST. FAITH M 


520 




WEST. TANZI N 


172 




WILDENSTEINER. 


300 




WILEY. JOHN L J 


253 



91 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


General Counsel (Cont'd) 


WOJNAROWSKI, DO 


1,377 




WOLF. BETSY L 


1,732 


Assistant Secretary for Administration 


ACKERMAN, MARY 


1,209 




ALLEN, DEBORAH 


514 




ALLEN, EUNICE W 


1.000 




ANDERSON, CAROL 


563 




ANSELL, DEBORAH 


310 




ARIAS, CARLOS 


1,011 




ARRINGTON, TOMA 


696 




AVELEYRA, ENRIQ 


2,000 




BACH, CAROLYN R 


870 




BANNISTER, WILL 


2.535 




BARBOUR, ROBERT 


1,444 




BARNES, KENNETH 


1,011 




BARRETT, MARY M 


400 




BATT, GAIL A 


1.650 




BAXTER, KATHY L 


1,444 




BEARD. ALTON L 


2.884 




BELAND, SHARON 


900 




BELLET. CRAIG J 


530 




BERGQUIST. RAND 


1,650 




BERRY. WENDELL 


1,500 




BLACKMON. CYNTH 


650 




BLACKWELL. FRAN 


464 




BLEICHER. JOSEP 


1,003 




BLUE. JOCELYN T 


800 




BLUM. JOHN C JR 


1.000 




BOECHER, HEIDI 


292 




BRADLEY. RICHAR 


722 




BRADY, RODERICK 


1,650 




BRENKUS, JOHN D 


1,000 




BRIDGES. CAROLE 


696 




BROOKS, TAMARA 


200 




BROSNAN, PATRIC 


630 




BROWN, EVELYN A 


1,500 




BROWN, JAMES M 


1.100 




BROWN, RICHARD 


1,193 




BRYAN. ROBERT D 


414 




BUCKLER. FRANCI 


845 




BURCH. EVELYN K 


900 




BURNETT. FREDER 


870 




BUSH. CRYSTAL M 


820 




BYRD. LORI S 


1,246 




CALLOWAY. STEPH 


600 




CAREATTI, VINCE 


700 




CARROLL. JAMES 


3.033 



OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


Assistant Secretary for Administration 






(Cont'd) 


CARTER, DENISON 


1,423 




CARTER. JOYCE L 


563 




CAYWOOD, KATHLE 


650 




CHANDLER, PAULA 


750 




CHAPMAN, ELWYND 


1,705 




CHASE. JESSELLE 


600 




CHASTAIN. DENNI 


2,100 




CHERRY. LAWRENC 


514 




CHILDS, HERBERT 


1.322 




CLARK. WILLIAM 


673 




COFFIN. JANET C 


600 




COGGINS. COLLEE 


500 




CONYERS, VERNON 


2,201 




COOKE, MARIA SA 


806 




COPE. BILLY 


900 




CORREIA. NANCY 


1.249 




COUSINS, PAUL M 


300 




CRAIG, JAMES B 


1.215 




CREAGER. CARL D 


2,100 




CRONIN. RICHARD 


2.350 




CROSS, LINDA L 


1.350 




CRYMES, MARTIN 


1.011 




DARDEN. GERALDI 


500 




DATTILO. RONALD 


586 




DAVIS, SYLVIA L 


1.000 




DE BUZNA, JOSEP 


1,100 




DEAHL. JANIS L 


638 




DELEON. EDMUNDO 


700 




DEMPSEY. SHERDI 


845 




DEROSA, MARY F 


870 




DICKERSON, MARY 


650 




DOMINGUEZ. LAWR 


900 




DONELAN, MARY P 


1,100 




DOUCETTE. CHARL 


2.006 




DUDIS, TERESA L 


1,550 




EDGELL, KENNETH 


1,100 




ELLIS. ANGEL B 


365 




ELLIS. ANNbl lb 


464 




EPPS. LARRY DOU 


630 




ESPENSHADE. KAT 


1.303 




EUGENE. BARBARA 


1.329 




EWEN. PAULA D 


1.700 




FALLAT. BARBARA 


1.173 




FATTES. JOHN T 


1.300 




FEDE. ROBERTA R 


1.344 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


Assistant Secretary for Administration 






(Cont'd) 


FERGUSON, STANL 


845 




FISHER. BONNIE 


1,250 




FISHER. JACQUEL 


914 




FLETCHER. SUSAN 


563 




FOX. RICHARD R 


845 




FREED. WILLIAM 


2.350 




FRYE. ALMA L 


440 




GAINOR, BETPi' M 


246 




GARNICA, DAVID 


750 




GARRATT, SANDRA 


575 




GARRISON. VERON 


784 




GARZA, MELISSA 


550 




GERTEL. MARTIN 


2.000 




GINGRAS, PAULIN 


1,000 




GLOBERMAN, HOWA 


1.000 




GOLDMAN. PAUL E 


728 




GORDON. BRENDA 


563 




GOTTLIEB. KERI- 


250 




GOULD, JOSEPHIN 


700 




GOVAN. JAMES 


696 




GRANT, IZEOLA 


750 




GRASSO. FRANK J 


845 




GREEN, ANCIL A 


464 




GREEN, WILLIAM 


400 




GREENE. THOMAS 


1.095 




GRIGG. CRAWFORD 


2.006 




GUADALUPE. ANNE 


350 




GUENTHER. WALTE 


792 




HACKLEY. CHARLO 


1,342 




HACKNEY. MARTHA 


722 




HAIRSTON, MELVI 


514 




HALE. MAUREEN R 


305 




HAMMONDS. LINDS 


1,444 




HANCOCK, JOHN A 


1,705 




HANSEN. THOMAS 


2,000 




HARLEY. VERONIC 


550 




HARRELL. JAMES 


700 




HARRIS. STEPHAN 


850 




HART. D BORAH A 


563 




HARVEY. LIEUTEN 


3,033 




+IARVEY. STERLIN 


630 




HAWKINS. DAVID 


630 




HAWKINS. JAMES 


1,644 




HAWKINS. MILLIC 


440 




HEINMULLER. DAV 


1.705 



94 



DOLLAR 
OFFICE NAME AMOUNT 



Assistant Secretary for Administration 
(Cont'd) 



HELLER, ROBERT 1,100 

HENRICHSEN, ART 1,058 

HILLIARD, MINNI 286 

HOHEISEL. ROBER 790 

HOLDEN, BETTY J 2,000 

HOLLAND, JUDY A 750 

HOOKS, EARNEST 630 

HORKAN. NANCY G 1,200 

HOWARD, CARLTON 696 

HUGHES, DENNIS 845 

HUGHES, PHYLLIS 2,350 

HYATT. DEBORAH 550 

ICHNIOWSKI. FRA 2.100 

INGRAM. ERNEST 1.100 

INGRAM, MARGIE 1.011 

IRVING, LORI A 950 

IVEY. LA VERNE 630 

IVEY, WINDELL 514 

JACOB. JOHN Q 300 

JAEGER. GREGORY 991 

JEFFERSON. LINC 630 

JENIFER. SUSAN 870 

JOHNS. JOSEPH J 450 

JOHNSON. AARON 775 

JOHNSON. ARTIS 900 

JOHNSON. G MARA 1.650 

JOHNSON. PHAEDR 537 

JONES. JENNIFER 1.320 

JONES. LEMUEL J 762 

JONES. LEROY 630 

JONES. VIVIAN 8 1.120 

JORDAN. DAVIS W 794 

JORDAN. LEON C 745 

KANE, MICHAEL P 1.000 

KARICHER. JAN B 675 

KEARNEY. GATHER 850 

KEENAN. MARGARE 1.100 

KENT. CHRISTINE 1.000 

KERNS. JOHN M 450 

KERSHNER. KIMBE 750 

KEYSER. CATHY L 2.088 

KEYSER. PAMELEE 563 

KISH. JOHN P 300 

KOCHERSPERGER. 600 

KORMOS. JOANNE 915 



95 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


Assistant Secretary for Administration 






(Cont'd) 


KRAUS, JANET A 


1.003 




KREAMER, GEORGE 


464 




LANGLEY. VALERI 


200 




LARACUENTE, MAR 


950 




LAUGHLIN, ROBER 


845 




LAW, NEAL C 


852 




LEACH. PHILLIP 


700 




LECLAIR. DANIEL 


700 




LEEK, BEVERLY A 


900 




LEIBOWITZ, IRA 


1,000 




LEVASSEUR. JAME 


722 




LEWIS, HELEN M 


1,350 




LIEBER. RICHARD 


1,000 




LINARES. ARNALD 


200 




LITMAN, DAVID J 


1.589 




LITMAN. DIANE C 


1.494 




LIVINGSTON. SYL 


920 




LOGAN. DORIS L 


575 




LOVICK. DELORES 


1,120 




LOWERY, MAXINE 


563 




LUCK. LARRY B 


414 




LUNDQUIST. LESL 


806 




LYNCH. SYLVIA M 


1,700 




MARSH. KATHRYN 


845 




MARTIN. RITA R 


3.405 




MARTUS, NANCY L 


300 




MCCORKLE. POLA 


845 




MCCOY, JOHN W 


563 




MCCULLOUGH, GAR 


2.006 




MCGHEE. SHELIA 


200 




MCGUIGAN. WILLI 


728 




MCLAMORE-SHELTO 


1.120 




MCNEAL. ELSIE F 


450 




MCVEY, TAMI L 


852 




MEDINA. VICKIE 


2.000 




MENEFEE. CHARLO 


1.000 




MIGUELINO. ELIA 


300 




MILLER. BRENDA 


991 




MILLS. DONALD J 


500 




MITCHELL. KAREN 


845 




MITCHELL. LAVAU 


500 




MONO. MALIN L 


1.500 




MONTGOMERY, CLE 


845 




MONTO. PHILIP J 


414 




MOONEY. KEVIN A 


833 



96 



DOLLAR 
NAME AMOUNT 



QEEIGE 

Assistant secretary for Administration ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^ 

^^^"''^^ MOORE. LEEANN 300 

MOORE, MARY LYN 1,100 

MORAN, MICHAEL 1.100 

MORGAN. WILLIAM 500 

MORRIS. JULIE L 551 

MOSBY. NATHANIE 1.712 

MOWRY. NANCYA 1.650 

MULCAHY. GERLEY 606 

MYERS, RAET 1.100 

MYLES. CONNIE L 563 

NELSON, HARRY D 350 

NICHOLS. HAROLD 464 

NICHOLS. TISHA 600 

NICHOLSON, MARY 950 

NIPPER, BARBARA 1,610 

NOYES. PETER A 500 

OLIVER. THEODOR 800 

OSBORN, BRYANT 810 

PANNELL, VERONI 200 

PAPAGJIKA. SPIR 700 

PAREKH. JASHAVA 350 

PAULEY. STEPHEN 820 

PAVLIK, CATRINA 600 

PECK, DALE L 630 

PEMBERTON, VERD 500 

PEOPLES, EUNICE 903 

POEHLMAN, DOROT 852 

PORTER, IW D 775 

POSTON. LORRAIN 563 

PRIVETT.LEEA 2.100 

PROPER, DAVID W 845 

PROSPERI. PATRI 2.860 

PUCKETT. EARLW 1,011 

RAY. CLAUDETTE 318 

REED, CHARLES E 845 

REILLY, FRANCIS 3,033 

REYNALDO. REINA 1,000 

RHEA. DESHANTA 414 

RHOADS, LINDA H 1.550 

RIES. BARBARA 1.500 

ROBERSON. ROSIE 1,300 

ROBINSON. ALBER 800 

ROBINSON. DIANE 400 

ROBINSON. SHERY 100 



97 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


Assistant Secretary for Administration 






(Cont'd) 


ROCKMAKER, PHIL 


1.003 




ROCKWELL, MOLLI 


1,000 




ROGERS. SHIRLEY 


1.100 




ROROS, MINAS 


550 




ROSCOE, CYNTHIA 


600 




RUBLE. SALLY 


870 




RUSSELL, MELVIN 


1,100 




RUTHERFORD, WIL 


870 




SAMUELS, TAMRA 


1,047 




SAWIN, DOUGLASS 


2,703 




SAWLER, LAWRENC 


376 




SCHOSSLER, DENI 


1.100 




SCHWARTZ, SUSAN 


750 




SCOTT, DENNIS M 


800 




SEYMOUR. JON H 


5.785 




SHECKELLS. JACK 


1.690 




SHERMAN, WILLIS 


722 




SHIVELY, THOMAS 


845 




SIBLEY, MARY E 


1.000 




SIMMONS. BETTY 


600 




SIMMS, WILBERT 


696 




SIMPSON. STEVE 


1.011 




SMITH. BRENDA J 


950 




SMITH, MILTON 


762 




SMITH. STEPHEN 


950 




SMITH. TERRY C 


1.550 




SORENSON, DENNI 


950 




SPILLENKOTHEN. 


8.500 




SPRIGGS. SHEILA 


1.200 




SPRUILL. RUGENE 


852 




STAIGER. EVELYN 


642 




STEWART. ALVIN 


2.535 




STOKES. ROBERT 


1.100 




STOKES. ROBERT 


807 




STRANGES. TIMOT 


2.000 




STUART. GLADYS 


700 




STURGILL. RUDY 


1.250 




SUGGS. ARETHA E 


309 




SUMMERS. JOHN C 


1.100 




SUTHERLAND. JOH 


870 




SUTTON. CAROL A 


3.405 




SWANN. BARBARA 


784 




SWANN, RAMONA R 


366 




SWANSON. STEVEN 


1.600 




TANSKY. MICHAEL 


300 



98 



DOLLAR 
Q££j£E NAME AMQUNI 

Assistant Secretan. for Administration ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^ ^^^ 

(^°"^'*^ TATE.GLENDAM 7,500 

TAYLOR, ROBERT 1.000 

TAYLOR. SYLVIA 576 

TEREYLA, MATTHE 675 

TERRY, CATHERIN 696 

THOMPSON, LAVON 2,088 

THRIFT. WILLIAM 696 

TIKTIN. KENNETH 750 

TILGHMAN. CHERY 563 

TINSMAN. C MARI 1.100 

TOLLERSON. SUSA 1,100 

TOYE, RICHARD E 500 

TRETCHICK. RACH 792 

TRINKLEY. DUANE 600 

TRUONG. BINH V 880 

TUCKER, SHIRLEY 414 

VACTOR. ROBIN R 696 

VALERIC. RAFAEL 1.889 

VASS. CATHERINE 696 

VENGAZO, RICHAR 790 

VESTAL. RONALD 300 

WALKER. DOROTHY 1.400 

WALLACE. DENISE 1.150 

WALLACE-WILSON. 1.000 

WALTERS, JOANNE 845 

WASHINGTON. WAR 514 

WEAKLEY. BARBAR 800 

WEAVER. FRANKLI 630 

WEISS. PAUL T 6,000 

WELCH, MARK T 1,209 

WEST. BERNETTE 153 

WESTON. RONALD 1,100 

WESTRAY. CINDY 550 

WHEELER. FLOREN 1.360 

WHEELER. MONICA 950 

WHITE, EUDORA 796 

WIDAWSKI. LOUIS 900 

WILDER. BEVERLY 851 

WILKINS. DOROTH 1.000 

WILLIAMS. ROSA 950 

WILLIAMS, VANES 1.100 

WILLIAMS. WILLI 900 

WILSON. ANNETTE 300 

WIRICK. GLENN W 1.444 

WOODMANSEE. JAM 1.650 



99 



OFFICE 

Assistant Secretary for Administration 
(Cont'd) 



FY 1995 



Immediate Office of the Secretary 



Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary 



Executive Secretariat 



Board of Contract Appeals 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization 



Office of Civil Rights 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


YOUNG, EMMETT S 


845 


YOUNG, GEORGE F 


450 


ZYWUSKO, STEPHE 


722 


CRALEY, JOYCE R 


$825 


DANIELS, BRENDA 


694 


DILLARD, IDA C 


649 


DUNCAN. SUSAN F 


360 


EDGELL, KENNETH 


1,048 


FIOCCO, MARY JA 


308 


GAITHER, SHIRLE 


140 


HARRIS, NANCY C 


411 


LORD, LISA LYNN 


403 


MCDONAI n, MINNI 


493 


MOORE. CAROLYN 


575 


PISANI. ANN M 


715 


SHATINSKY. BOHD 


1,062 


SULLIVAN, MARK 


924 


WOOD, WILLIAM M 


342 


BURROUGHS, BARB 


218 


HILLIARD. GLORI 


222 


BATTLE, ARTHUR 


133 


BURFORD, PEGGY 


203 


CONWAY, MACHELL 


579 


EGHTEDARI, SARA 


924 


MCCARTHY, MARY 


945 


RATCLIFFE, CARO 


862 


SMITH, JEANNE E 


419 


STROZIER, PRISC 


228 


THOMAS, KATHLEE 


684 


HIGGS, SHIRLEY 


622 


MILLINE, GERALD 


512 


CAPUANO, JOSEPH 


1.339 


DILVER, ANGELA 


462 


FRANCO, GERARDO 


315 


HARRIS, BRENDA 


300 


HENDRICKS, MARI 


736 


HODGE, PAT L 


275 


HOWARD, GLORIA 


551 


JACKSON, ARTHUR 


974 


MARTIN, PATRICI 


403 


MOORE, WILL T 


1,310 


SLIGH, BEVERLY 


275 


SOLOMON, EMILY 


267 


BERKOSKI, MARIL 


218 


DAVIS, WILLIAM 


355 


GRANT, DENISE E 


120 


HART, DARYL A 


446 


KITTLE, CHERIE 


478 



100 



OFFICE 

Office of Civil Rights (Cont'd) 



Office of Commercial Space Transportation 



Office of Intelligence and Security 



Office of Public Affairs 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


MARIANI. LUIGI 


350 


WILLIAMS, ALBER 


315 


WILLSON, CLEOTR 


267 


BRINKMAN, CHARL 


349 


FLORES, CAROLE 


325 


FREED, GWENDOLY 


391 


GRESS, RONALD K 


1,290 


HAMILTON, HARRI 


575 


HARRIS, ROSEMAR 


473 


INGLE, CAROL L 


116 


JACKSON. TERRIE 


131 


KELLEY, CAROL A 


757 


MITCHELL, RUBEN 


315 


PARKER, BRENDA 


974 


QUISENBERRY, BO 


452 


RAPPAPORT. CARL 


1,354 


REPCHECK. JAMES 


315 


SCOTT, RICHARD 


1.354 


SMITH, PATRICIA 


455 


STRINE, LINDA H 


974 


WELLS, DAMON R 


750 


ALLEN. ELIZABET 


131 


ANDERSON, SHERR 


946 


BOWEN, KIMBERLY 


211 


CALLEN. DOUGLAS 


378 


DALY, JOHN B 


1,227 


FALVEY. THOMAS 


1.024 


MEYER. SUSAN F 


179 


QUEEN. GERTRUDE 


694 


SHARP. SHARAN D 


1.019 


SHUMAKER. JEFFR 


315 


BALDWIN. BARBAR 


600 


BURT. WENDY J 


500 


CHALLIS. SUE A 


500 


COOK. JEFFERY D 


150 


CULLINAN, JAMES 


400 


DANKERS. LORIE 


400 


GORDON. KIRK A 


100 


GRAY. CONSTANCE 


750 


GRAY. SHEILA D 


600 


JACKSON. RONDA 


500 


KAISER. ROSLYN 


250 


MATRIGALI. ELAI 


500 


MOSLEY, WILLIAM 


250 


PEE, SHEILA A 


500 


ROBISON. WYNOLA 


200 



101 



OFFICE 

Office of Public Affairs (Cont'd) 



Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs 



Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
Affairs 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


TOWLES, KEVIN S 


400 


WILEY. REGINAA 


200 


ANDREWS. GEARY 


962 


AVELEYRA, ENRIQ 


750 


BLUE, JOCELYN T 


640 


BROWN. EVELYN A 


950 


CLASEN, MARC T 


518 


DAVIS, LOLEISA 


1.400 


DAVIS. SYLVIA L 


950 


DIABATE, BRENDA 


223 


ETHERIDGE, DORO 


131 


FATTES, JOHN T 


1,640 


FERRELL, BARBAR 


170 


FROMER. JULIAA 


715 


GOLDSTEIN, MYRO 


391 


HOLDEN, BETTY J 


950 


JONES, JENNIFER 


500 


JONES. VIVIAN B 


1,400 


KLEINE. ANDREW 


404 


LAWHEAD, MERRY 


962 


LITTY, STEVEN C 


818 


MAGURN. JOHN T 


547 


MARRS, KATHLEEN 


993 


MCLAMORE-SHELTO 


1,400 


MOGA. WILLIAM J 


502 


NICHOLSON, MARY 


1.640 


NIPPER. BARBARA 


650 


PAREKH. JASHAVA 


500 


ROBERSON. ROSIE 


950 


RUSSELL. MELVIN 


1.250 


STUART, GLADYS 


750 


STULTS. ERIC W 


259 


SWANSON. STEVEN 


1.000 


TOWNES. DABNEY 


993 


VICKS, MARVIN H 


127 


WALKER, HERBERT 


500 


WILLIAMS, EVA M 


213 


WORZALA, DAVID 


606 


ALLEN. BERNESTI 


1,399 


BENNETT, RANDAL 


1,399 


BINGHAM. GORDON 


1.189 


BINGHAM, TERESA 


1,386 


BINGHAM, WILLIA 


1,399 


BOYD. WILLIAM C 


1,399 


CARMODY. TIMOTH 


1,189 



102 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


Assistant Secretary for Aviation and Internationa 


1 




Affairs (Cont'd) 


COLDREN. CAROLY 


1,399 




DARBY, L M III 


1,141 




DEAN, ROGER L 


1.314 




DECARME, DAVID 


1,202 




DEMAS, VIRGINIA 


1,000 




DEVANY, DENNIS 


1,282 




FLEMMINGS. REAT 


500 




GALSTER, JEANNE 


700 




GAYNES, JEFFREY 


1,399 




GORSKY, SUSAN E 


1,022 




GRETCH, PAUL L 


5,971 




LAMEIRO, MARIA 


1,255 




LEVINE, ARNOLD 


5,971 




USER. FLORIZEL 


1,329 




LOUGHLIN, RICHA 


1,399 




MALLALIEU. CHAR 


1,178 




MARSHALL, JUDIT 


1,000 




MCCANN. CHARLES 


1,342 




MCDERMOTT, SUSA 


1,399 




MILAN, REGIS P 


1,399 




MILLER. JOHN D 


1,255 




MODESITT. DAVID 


1,189 




MOORE. SYLVIA L 


1,000 




MOSLEY. SHIRLEY 


700 




MURPHY. PA! RICK 


5,590 




NIEDERBERGER. E 


1,139 




PRETE. LINDA L 


1,000 




SCHMIDT. JOHN P 


1,189 




SEALS. TAMMI D 


500 




SENESE. LINDA W 


1,000 




SMITH. SHELITA 


700 




STREET. MARY 


1,212 




THOMAS. PATRICI 


1.399 




TRUHAN. ALLEN S 


1.194 




WELLINGTON. GEO 


1.372 




WIENER. ALLEN J 


1.037 




WOODS. CAROL AN 


1.000 


Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy 


BROWN. YVONNE H 


1.000 




CANNY. JOSEPH F 


5.590 




CASE. JULIE M 


1.000 




COATES. EUGENIA 


1.000 




ENTY. LUVERN 


1.000 




KONHEIM. ARNOLD 


1,000 




KUO. ROBERT T 


1.000 




LASTER. IRA JR 


1.000 



103 



OFFICE 

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy 
(Cont'd) 



Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs 



General Counsel 



NAfWlE 

LAWSON, LINDA L 
MITTELHOLTZ, CA 
NUTTER. ROBERT 
PARKER, ELIZABE 
RASTATTER. EDWA 
SHAPIRO, STEPHE 
STEVENSON, LORE 
WEIL, RAYMOND W 
WEINER, EDWARD 
WIGGERS, GEORGE 
BLUMENSTEIN, JU 
BREWER, NANCY E 
BROWN. BRENDA W 
GILCHRIST. LIND 
GOLD. JUDI A 
GREEN, JOYCE E 
HAMILTON. NADIN 
JONES. SANDRA S 
MINNERY, PHYLLl 
MOORE, NANCY M 
MORRISSEY, STEP 
RIVERA-GLAGOLA, 
SEXTON-FLATOW, 
THORNE. BEVERLY 
ZOK, CAROLYN RO 
ADAMS. MYRNA F 
ANDREWS. DALE C 
ASHBY. ROBERT C 
BATES. MICHAEL 
BLOCH, PETER M 
BOECK. CHARLOTT 
BROOKS. JOSEPH 
BROOKS. LORETTA 
BURG, STEVEN M 
CARLSON, TERENC 
CHESLEY. PATRIC 
CLEMONS. GLORIA 
DANN, JAMES R 
DASHIELL. MARGA 
DAWSON, DENISE 
DE CELL, JANE B 
DECKER, HOYTE B 
DIEDERICH, BERN 
DONELAN. CLARE 
ERTEL, EDWARD B 
FARBMAN. STEVEN 



DOLLAR 
AMOUNT 

1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1.000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
650 
325 
650 
650 
325 
650 
325 
325 
650 
650 
325 
650 
325 
650 
325 
398 
872 
872 
331 
784 
707 
872 
204 
162 
668 
329 
519 
872 
398 
210 
773 
325 
331 
828 
210 
361 



104 



OFFICE 

General Counsel (Cont'd) 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


FERGUSON. JAYME 


106 


GARRISON, VERON 


398 


GILLETTE, JOAN 


256 


GOLDNER, ROBERT 


872 


GOODMAN, MARGUE 


325 


HARPER, SHARON 


228 


HATTEN, CYNTHIA 


581 


HEARNS, MARILYN 


284 


HOLMSTRUP, MARK 


306 


HORN, DONALD H 


6,040 


JOHNSON, CAROLY 


284 


JONES, LOUISE M 


106 


JOOST. ROBERT H 


331 


KAYLOR, PHYLLIS 


351 


KELLY, TIMOTHY 


650 


KESSLER, NANCY 


784 


KLOTHE, ROBERT 


872 


LANGAN-FEIRSON, 


827 


LEHMAN, DAYTON 


827 


LEONARD, DECLAN 


210 


LONG, PAMELA M 


211 


LOWRY, NICHOLAS 


358 


MAHONEY, THOMAS 


307 


MARISTCH, RITA 


383 


MCGUIGAN, KATHL 


695 


METOYER. STEPHE 


784 


METZGER, RUTH D 


426 


MILLARD, ALEXAN 


227 


MILLS, BARBARA 


283 


MONTGOMERY, LAU 


351 


MORGAN, MONA E 


352 


MYERS. LAWRENCE 


431 


PARSON. DEBORAH 


284 


PETRIE. JOANNE 


761 


PITTMAN. LAVERN 


244 


PLOCKLPETERJ 


714 


PODBERESKY, SAM 


6.041 


PRATER.THERESA 


210 


PROPHET. SANDRA 


310 


RADLOFF. GWYNET 


872 


RANDOLPH. DENIS 


256 


RAY. THOMAS L 


872 


REGISTER. WILLI 


784 


RIPKIN. RUTH H 


348 


ROSEN. DEBRA J 


668 


ROSENBERG. ESTA 


351 


ROSS. ANN E 


348 



105 



OFFICE 

General Counsel (Cont'd) 



Assistant Secretary for Administration 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


ROSS, ROBERT 1 


784 


RUPP. JEFF D 


668 


SAUNDERS-OWINGS 


276 


SCHWARZKOPF, PE 


784 


SCOTT, MICHEL 


325 


SMITH, PAUL SAM 


301 


SNYDER, PATRICI 


810 


STRICKMAN. NORM 


650 


TOCHEN, DAVID K 


784 


TOURTELLOT. CHR 


773 


TREJO, LAURA 1 


204 


TRULY-JACKSON, 


256 


ULMER, DOROTHY 


348 


WAGNER. WILLIAM 


481 


WALLACE, DARLEN 


398 


WASHINGTON, SAN 


296 


WEST, FAITH M 


266 


WILEY. JOHN L J 


136 


WOLF, BETSY L 


872 


ACKERMAN. MARY 


817 


ALLEN. DEBORAH 


380 


ALLEN, EUNICE W 


215 


ANDERSON. CAROL 


416 


ANSELL, DEBORAH 


600 


ARIAS. CARLOS 


747 


ARNOLD. WILHELM 


380 


BACH. CAROLYN R 


350 


BANKS. MAURICE 


800 


BANNISTER. WILL 


625 


BARNES. KENNETH 


747 


BATT. GAIL A 


430 


BAXTER. KATHY L 


882 


BELAND, SHARON 


500 


BERGQUIST. RAND 


550 


BERRY. WENDELL 


500 


BLACKMON. CYNTH 


700 


BLACKWELL. FRAN 


380 


BLUM. JOHN C JR 


734 


BOECHER. HEIDI 


374 


BOWEN. DORSENA 


500 


BRADLEY. RICHAR 


882 


BRADY. RODERICK 


900 


BROWN. JAMES M 


450 


BROWN. RICHARD 


882 


BUDNIK. JOHN E 


600 


BURCH. EVELYN K 


500 


BURNETT. FREDER 


400 



106 



OFFICE 



DOLLAR 
NAME AiyiOUNT 



BUTLER, JOHN D 343 

BYRD, LORI S 817 

CARROLL, JAMES 747 

CARTER, DENISON 500 

CAYWOOD, KATHLE 500 

CHAPMAN, ELWYND 1,041 

CHERRY, LAWRENC 380 

CHILDS, HERBERT 630 

CLARK, WILLIAM 600 

COFFIN. JANET C 600 

COGGINS. COLLEE 1,000 

COOKE, MARIA SA 500 

CREAGER, CARL D 1,500 

CRONIN. RICHARD 800 

CROSS, LINDA L 450 

CRYMES, MARTIN 747 

DEAHL, JANIS L 295 

DELEON. EDMUNDO 500 

DEMPSEY. SHERDI 1.645 

DICKERSON, MARY 750 

DOMINGUEZ, CARL 621 

DONELAN. MARY P 600 

DUDIS, TERESA L 800 

EPPS. LARRY DOU 465 

ESPENSHADE, KAT 809 

EUGENE, BARBARA 1,000 

EWEN. PAULA D 1.000 

FEDE. ROBERTA R 548 

FERGUSON, STANL 625 

FISHER. BONNIE 500 

FISHER, JACQUEL 400 

FREED. WILLIAM 1.100 

GARNICA, DAVID 300 

GARRATT, SANDRA 400 

GARZA. MELISSA 800 

GERTEL. MARTIN 1.100 

GRANT. IZEOLA 430 

GRASSO. FRANK J 625 

GREENE. THOMAS 500 

GUENTHER. WALTE 630 

HACKLEY, CHARLO 671 

HACKNEY. MARTHA 878 

HAKES. ALLAN L 200 

HALE. MAUREEN R 375 

HANCOCK. JOHN A 1.041 



107 



OFFICE 

Assistant Secretary for Administration (Cont'd) 



NAME 


AMQUNT 


HARTING, KATHIE 


1.500 


HAWKINS, MILLIC 


375 


HELLER, ROBERT 


775 


HOEFER, ELIZABE 


860 


HOHEISEL. ROBER 


900 


HOLLAND. JUDY A 


600 


HORKAN, NANCY G 


1,000 


HOWARD, CARLTON 


514 


HUGHES, PHYLLIS 


1,100 


INGRAM, ERNEST 


500 


INGRAM. MARGIE 


747 


JACOB, JOHN Q 


500 


JEFFERSON, LINC 


465 


JENIFER. SUSAN 


300 


JOHNS, JOSEPH J 


1.000 


JOHNSON. G MARA 


775 


JOHNSON. TAMIA 


80 


JONES. CLYDETTE 


430 


JONES, LEMUEL J 


563 


JORDAN, DAVIS W 


816 


KANE. MICHAEL P 


500 


KARICHER. JAN B 


645 


KEEFER. RONALD 


5.365 


KEENAN, MARGARE 


725 


KENNEDY. ARLENE 


500 


KERSHNER, KIMBE 


300 


KEYSER, CATHY L 


1.354 


KISH, JOHN P 


550 


KOGER. JANNIE 


882 


KORMOS. JOANNE 


317 


KRAUS.JANETA 


1,225 


LAUGHLIN. ROBER 


625 


LAW, NEAL C 


1.041 


LEEK. BEVERLY A 


1.500 


LEIBOWITZ. IRA 


509 


LEVASSEUR. JAME 


882 


LEWIS, HELEN M 


200 


LIEBER, RICHARD 


547 


LUCK. LARRY B 


306 


LUNDQUIST. LESL 


500 


LYNCH. SYLVIA M 


500 


MARTUS. NANCY L 


1.000 


MCCORKLE. POLA 


1,645 


MCCULLOUGH. GAR 


3,225 


MCGUIGAN. WILLI 


1,500 


MEDINA. VICKIE 


1,500 


MENEFEE. CHARLO 


500 



108 



OFFICE 

Assistant Secretary for Administration (Cont'd) 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


MILLER, BRENDA 


375 


MILLER, KEAN L 


1,000 


MITCHELL, LAVAU 


400 


MONTGOMERY, CLE 


625 


MOONEY, KEVIN A 


375 


MOORE. MARY LYN 


200 


MORAN, MICHAEL 


850 


MORGAN, WILLIAM 


500 


MORRIS, JULIE L 


232 


MOWRY. NANCY A 


850 


MULCAHY, GERLEY 


300 


MYLES, CONNIE L 


416 


NICHOLS. HAROLD 


343 


OLIVER, THEODOR 


1,500 


OPSTAD-ALESHIRE 


500 


PARRISH, PATRIC 


5,365 


PATTERSON, BREN 


514 


PEMBERTON. VERD 


500 


PINTO, CATHERIN 


725 


PORTER. IVY D 


300 


POSTON, LORRAIN 


416 


POTTER, PATRIC! 


750 


PRICE. PHYLLIS 


625 


PRIVh II , LEE A 


650 


PROPER, DAVID W 


1.645 


PROSPERI. PATRI 


1.100 


PUCKETT. EARL W 


747 


PUGH, LAWRENCE 


747 


RAY, CLAUDETTE 


300 


REYNALDO, REINA 


500 


RHEA. DESHANTA 


343 


RHOADS. LINDA H 


800 


RIES, BARBARA 


664 


ROBINSON. SHARO 


882 


ROCKWELL. MOLLI 


1,000 


ROGERS. SHIRLEY 


850 


ROSCOE. CYNTHIA 


400 


ROWLETT. THERES 


882 


RUBLE. SALLY 


700 


RUTHERFORD. WIL 


350 


SAWIN. DOUGLASS 


1.500 


SAWLER. LAWRENC 


188 


SCHOSSLER. DENI 


645 


SEYMOUR. JON H 


7.520 


SHIVELY. THOMAS 


625 


SIMMONS. BETTY 


323 


SIMMS. WILBERT 


514 



109 



OFFICE 

Assistant Secretary for Administration (Cont'd) 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


SIMPSON, JOAN 


800 


SMITH, STEPHEN 


1,000 


SMITH, TERRY C 


600 


SORENSON, DENNI 


500 


SPITNALE. NELSO 


500 


SPRIGGS, SHEILA 


500 


SPRUILL, RUGENE 


2,741 


STATEN, MARTHA 


1,500 


STEVENS. WARREN 


269 


STEWART, ALVIN 


1.645 


STOKES. ROBERT 


323 


SUGGS. ARETHA E 


301 


SUMMERS, JOHN C 


550 


SUTHERLAND. JOH 


450 


SUTTON, CAROL A 


1,041 


SWANN. BARBARA 


500 


SWANN. RAMONA R 


374 


TANSKY. MICHAEL 


200 


TAPSCOTT. WILLI 


2.322 


TATE. GLENDA M 


5.365 


TAYLOR. ROBERT 


255 


TAYLOR. SYLVIA 


288 


TELEP. DANIEL J 


500 


TEREYLA. MATTHE 


500 


TERRY. CATHERIN 


1,354 


THOMAS. SHIRLEY 


400 


THOMPSON. LAVON 


625 


THOMPSON. WALTE 


1.096 


TINSMAN, C MARI 


550 


TRETCHICK, RACH 


378 


TRINKLEY. DUANE 


1,000 


USUAL. AMBA VAN 


300 


VENGA20. RICHAR 


400 


VESTAL. RONALD 


700 


WALKER, DOROTHY 


1.000 


WALLACE. DENISE 


650 


WALLACE. SHARON 


400 


WALLACE-WILSON. 


500 


WALTERS. JOANNE 


625 


WATKINS. CECELI 


215 


WEAKLEY. BARBAR 


400 


WELCH. MARK T 


700 


WHEELER. FLOREN 


680 


WHEELER. MONICA 


300 


WHITE. EUDORA 


600 


WIDAWSKI. LOUIS 


550 


WILDER. BEVERLY 


295 



110 



" 


'■ ■ 


DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


Assistant Secretary for Administration (Cont'd) 


WILKINS. DOROTH 
WILLIAMS. VANES 


1,000 
500 




WILLIAMS, WILLI 


550 




WIRICK. GLENN W 


882 




WOODMANSEE, JAM 


500 




YOUNG, DOREEN A 


1,500 



FY 1996 



Immediate Office of the Secretary 



Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary 



Office of Intermodalism 



Executive Secretariat 



Board of Contract Appeals 



ADAMS, GRACE E 
CRALEY, JOYCE R 
DANIELS, BRENDA 
EDGELL. KENNETH 
GAITHER. SHIRLE 
GARTMANN, CATHR 
LORD, LISA LYNN 
MCDONALD, MINNI 
MOORE, CAROLYN 
SHATINSKY, BOHD 
SWAIN, JAMES B 
SWART. JIMMY L 
BURROUGHS. BARB 
HILLIARD. GLORI 
ROLLINS, HENRY 
ALBERTSON. NORM 
DUNCAN. SUSAN F 
FIOCCO. MARY JA 
HARRIS, NANCY C 
PISANI. ANN M 
SULLIVAN. MARK 
WOOD, WILLIAM M 
BATTLE. ARTHUR 
BURFORD. PEGGY 
CONWAY, MACHELL 
EGHTEDARI, SARA 
FARGO, ANTOINET 
FEDE. ROBERTA R 
GORDON. RONALD 
GREENE, MARIE R 
HEMSLEY. ELROY 
MCCARTHY. MARY 
MITCHELL. LAVAU 
RATCLIFFE. CARO 
SMITH. JEANNE E 
STROZIER. PRISC 
THOMAS. KATHLEE 
WILLIAMS. BETTY 
HIGGS. SHIRLEY 
MILLINE. GERALD 



91 
858 
744 
381 
147 
344 
451 
179 
209 
1.137 
117 
334 
309 
235 
147 
144 
391 
327 
1,319 
744 
327 
372 
155 
214 
223 
988 
214 
1,124 
407 
214 
112 
1.084 
238 
923 
1.306 
832 
712 
214 
694 
573 



Ill 



OFFICE 

Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization 



Departmental Office of Civil Rights 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


CAPUANO. JOSEPH 


1,393 


DILVER. ANGELA 


481 


FRANCO. GERARDO 


344 


HARRIS. BRENDA 


936 


HENDRICKS, MARI 


766 


HODGE, PAT L 


291 


HOWARD, GLORIA 


631 


JACKSON, ARTHUR 


1,045 


fVIARTIN, PATRICI 


432 


MOORE, WILL T 


1,400 


SOLOMON, EMILY 


858 


STOWBRIDGE. WO 


344 


WATERS. GRACE P 


922 


ADAIR. DELISA D 


400 


ALLEN, JUDY S 


400 


AUSTIN, JOSEPH 


470 


BEAT. LARRY J 


400 


BELL. DEBORAH A 


400 


BENARD. CHARLES 


400 


BERKOSKI. MARIL 


470 


Bbl IIS. JEROME 


400 


BLASO, MICHELE 


400 


BLECHMAN. MARGA 


470 


BOBO. BRENDA P 


400 


BOULWARE. BARBA 


400 


BOYD-STEWART, A 


400 


BRADLEY, ROBERT 


400 


BRENMAN. MARC J 


400 


BROWN. AMY T 


470 


BROWN. EUGENE F 


470 


BURTON, EILEEN 


400 


CARROLL. SANDRA 


470 


CHARLES. RICHAR 


400 


COTTON. FERN A 


470 


COTTON, JACQUEL 


470 


CRUZ. NEREIDA 


470 


DAVIS. WILLIAM 


470 


EEDS. MONTE J 


400 


ELION. ANITA M 


400 


GALAN. BERTHA D 


400 


GIBSON, KAREN Y 


400 


GRAHAM, ELLA L 


400 


GROSS. JEFFREY 


470 


HARDEMAN. WILLI 


400 


HART. DARYL A 


1.058 


JACKSON. DOROTH 


400 


JEW. HELEN M 


400 


JOHNSON. ALFRED 


400 


JOHNSON. LINDA 


470 



112 



OFFICE a&SSS. 

Departmental Office of Civil Rights (Cont'd) JUST-BUDDY, ELS 

LOTT. STEVEN B 
LUCAS, LORRAINE 
LUCY, SANDRA R 
MARIANI, LUIGI 
MCCARTHY, JULIE 
MONGE, CLEMENT 
MOORE, DIANE A 
NORMENT. HANLEY 
OFFER-HATCHER. 
PHILLIPS. SYLVI 
PINCIARO. SUSAN 
POMPELL. LISA C 
RICHARDSON, PAT 
ROSENBERG, WILM 
SALINAS, HARRY 
SANDATE, GILBER 
SIMONS. ALRITA 
SMITH. RITA E 
SUAZO. PETER A 
VAZQUEZ. MAGDA 
VOTH. TIMOTHY J 
WALCOTT, HELEN 
WILLIAMS, ALBER 
WILLIAMS. RANDO 
WILLSON. CLEOTR 
WILSON. HERBERT 
WILSON. PATRICE 
WRIGHT, TAMi L 
ZIRLIN, JULIE B 
ALLEN. ELIZABET 
ANDERSON. SHERR 
CALLEN. DOUGLAS 
DALY, JOHN B 
FALVEY. THOMAS 
MEYER. SUSAN F 
QUEEN, GERTRUDE 
SHARP, SHARAN D 
SHUMAKER. JEFFR 



Office of Intelligence and Security 



Assistant Secretary for Budget and 
Programs 



ANDREWS, GEARY 
AVELEYRA, ENRIQ 
BROWN, EVELYN A 
CLASEN. MARC T 
DIABATE, BRENDA 
DICKERSON. MARY 



DOLLAR 
AMOUNT 

400 
470 
470 
400 
400 
470 
470 
400 
400 
470 
400 
470 
400 
400 
470 
470 
470 
470 
470 
1,058 
1,058 
400 
400 
1,058 
400 
470 
400 
400 
400 
400 
159 
1,016 
1.186 
1,313 
1,097 
190 
744 
1,091 
1,014 

653 
900 
1.500 
1.252 
750 
750 



113 



OFFICE 

Assistant Secretary for Budget and 
Programs (Cont'd.) 



Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 
International Affairs 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUMI 


ETHERIDGE, DORO 


165 


FATTES. JOHN T 


1.700 


FERRELL, BARBAR 


426 


FROMER, JULIAA 


901 


GOLDSTEIN. MYRO 


586 


JOHNSON. JOYCE 


900 


KENT, CHRISTINE 


1.700 


KLEINE. ANDREW 


626 


LAWHEAD. MERRY 


1.252 


LITTY, STEVEN C 


401 


MARRS. KATHLEEN 


1,252 


MOGA, WILLI AlVI J 


1.252 


IWIONG, t^ALIN L 


1,000 


NICHOLSON. MARY 


2.000 


ROBERSON. ROSIE 


1.000 


SALE. JAMES E 


435 


STIEGER. PAUL R 


392 


STUART. GLADYS 


900 


STULTS. ERIC W 


421 


SWANSON. STEVEN 


1.500 


TOWNES. DABNEY 


1.252 


VICKS. MARVIN H 


165 


ALLEN. BERNESTI 


1,621 


ANDERSON. ANGEL 


260 


BAKER. ALBERT J 


987 


BAKER. GWENDOLY 


805 


BENNETT. RANDAL 


1.621 


BINGHAM. GORDON 


1.378 


BINGHAM. TERESA 


1.606 


BINGHAM. WJLLIA 


1.399 


BOYD. WILLIAM C 


1.621 


BROWN. KELLi M 


307 


CARMODY. TIMOTH 


1.378 


COLDREN. CAROLY 


1,621 


CRAUN, JAMES M 


5,365 


CUNNINGHAM, MEL 


1,060 


DARBY, L M III 


1.306 


DEAN, ROGER L 


1,523 


DECARME. DAVID 


1,434 


DEMAS. VIRGINIA 


830 


DEVANY. DENNIS 


1.527 


FLEMMINGS, REAT 


500 


GALSTER. JEANNE 


642 


GAYNES. JEFFREY 


1.621 



114 



OFFICE 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 
international Affairs (Cont'd) 



Assistant Secretary for Transportation 
Policy 



NAME 

GORSKY, SUSAN E 
HARPER, SHARON 
HEDGES, ROBERT 
HILL, SONYA A 
JOHNSON, SUSAN 
JOHNSON-ARTIS. 
JUSTICE, CHRIST 
LAMEIRO, MARIA 
LISER, FLORIZEL 
LOUGHLIN. RICHA 
MALLALIEU, CHAR 
MARSHALL, JUDIT 
MCDERMOTT, SUSA 
MILAN, REGIS P 
MILLER, JOHN D 
MODESITT, DAVID 
MOORE. SYLVIA L 
MOSLEY, SHIRLEY 
MURPHY, PATRICK 
NIEDERBERGER, E 
OPPLER. EDWARD 
PERMENTER, CHER 
PRETE. LINDA L 
ROSENOW. PETER 
RUSH. JACQUELYN 
SCHMIDT. JOHN P 
SEALS, TAMMI D 
SENESE. LINDA W 
SHAW. LILLIE 
SMITH. SHELITA 
STREET, MARY 
TAYLOR. RONALE 
THOMAS. PATRICI 
TRUHAN. ALLEN S 
WELLINGTON. GEO 
WIENER, ALLEN J 
WILBUR. EDWARD 
WILLIAMS. GAZEL 
WILLIAMS. MARY 
WILSON. DELIA 
WOODS. CAROL AN 

BENNETT. JACK M 
BOWSER. PAUL B 
BROWN. BLONDIE 



DOLLAR 
AMO UNT 

1,219 
688 
1,599 
260 
311 
260 
260 
1,496 
1.540 
1.621 
1.365 
797 
1.621 
1,621 
1,496 
1,378 
830 
624 
5,590 
1,320 
5,365 
260 
905 
1,621 
260 
1.378 
482 
1,017 
260 
590 
1,446 
260 
1.621 
1.425 
1.590 
1.237 
1.307 
482 
659 
260 
1,060 



350 
900 
350 



115 



OFFICE 

Assistant Secretary for Transportation 

Policy (Cont'd) 



Assistant Secretary for Governmental 
Affairs 



NAME 

BROWN, YVONNE H 
CASE, JULIE M 
CLAXTON, DIONNE 
COATES, EUGENIA 
COLEVAS, STEPHE 
DEGROOT, HENRIE 
DIMODICA, NANCY 
EBERSOLE, NANCY 
ENTY, LUVERN 
ETTENSON, SUSAN 
GRAHAM, LORETTA 
IGO, DONALD J 
KONHEIM, ARNOLD 
KUO, ROBERT T 
LASTER. IRA JR 
LAWRENCE, LUCIA 
LAWSON. LINDA L 
MARCHESSAULT. T 
MITTELHOLTZ, CA 
NUTTER. ROBERT 
O'LEARY, JEANNE 
PANDOHIE. CLAUD 
PARKER. ELIZABE 
PEAK. JOHN T 
PHILLIPS. LAURE 
RASTATTER. EDWA 
SANFORD. VIRGIN 
SHAPIRO. STEPHE 
SHIRER. HEYWOOD 
SINGLETON. ELOI 
SMITH. BELINDA 
STEIN. ROBERT I 
STEVENSON. LORE 
SWERDLOFF. CARL 
TRILLING. DONAL 
WASHINGTON. BEL 
WEIL. RAYMOND W 
WEINER. EDWARD 
WIGGERS. GEORGE 

BLAYLOCK. JACK 
BLUMENSTEIN. JU 
BREWER. NANCY E 
BROWN. BRENDAW 
GILCHRIST. LIND 



DOLLAR 
AMOUNT 

900 
900 
350 
900 
350 
350 
350 
350 
900 
900 
350 
350 
900 
900 
900 
350 
1,000 
350 
560 
900 
900 
350 
900 
900 
350 
900 
350 
900 
350 
350 
900 
350 
900 
350 
6.072 
350 
900 
900 
900 

476 
951 
476 
951 
951 



116 



OFFICE 

Assistant Secretary for Governmental 
Affairs (Cont'd) 



General Counsel 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


GREEN. JOYCE E 


476 


MINNERY, PHYLLI 


951 


MOORE, NANCY M 


951 


PHILLIPS, OGREI 


476 


RIVERA-GLAGOLA, 


951 


SEXTON-FLATOW. 


476 


THORNE, BEVERLY 


951 


WILLHOIT, LAURA 


476 


ZOK. CAROLYN RO 


476 


ADAMS. MYRNA F 


783 


AMES, ANGELIA 


230 


ANDREWS, DALE C 


983 


ASHBY. ROBERT C 


883 


BATES. MICHAEL 


883 


BLOCH. PETER M 


883 


BLUMENTHAL. PAT 


530 


BOECK. CHARLOTT 


883 


BROOKS. JOSEPH 


883 


BROOKS. LORETTA 


280 


CARLSON. TERENC 


683 


CHAMBERS. DOROT 


883 


CHESLEY. PATRIC 


530 


CLEMONS, GLORIA 


630 


CROUTER. MARY M 


883 


DANN, JAMES R 


883 


DAWSON. DENISE 


480 


DE CELL. JANE B 


883 


DECKER, HOYTE B 


983 


DIEDERICH. BERN 


583 


DONELAN. CLARE 


983 


EISNER. NEIL R 


5,365 


FARBMAN, STEVEN 


583 


GARRISON. VERON 


330 


GEIER. PAUL M 


5.365 


GILLETTE. JOAN 


480 


GOLDBERG. DAVID 


283 


GOLDNER. ROBERT 


883 


GOODMAN. MARGUE 


280 


HATTEN. CYNTHIA 


530 


HEARNS. MARILYN 


280 


HOLMSTRUP. MARK 


483 


JONES. LOUISE M 


430 


JOOST. ROBERT H 


583 


KELLY. TIMOTHY 


683 


KESSLER. NANCY 


583 



117 



OFFICE 

General Counsel (Cont'd) 





DOLLAR 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


KLOTHE. ROBERT 


883 


KNAPP, ROSALIND 


5,590 


KOWALSKI, JEANN 


483 


LANGAN-FEIRSON, 


883 


LEHMAN. DAYTON 


883 


LONG, PAMELA M 


530 


LOWRY, NICHOLAS 


583 


MACPHEE, LISA H 


283 


MAHONEY. THOMAS 


583 


MARISTCH, RITA 


683 


MCGUIGAN, KATHL 


883 


MELLODY, JEROME 


983 


METOYER. STEPHE 


583 


METZGER, RUTH D 


630 


MILLARD. ALEXAN 


483 


MILLS. BARBARA 


583 


MONTGOMERY. LAU 


383 


MYERS. LAWRENCE 


583 


PARSON, DEBORAH 


280 


PEARSON, LOUISE 


280 


PETRIE. JOANNE 


983 


PITTMAN. LAVERN 


380 


PLOCKI, PETER J 


883 


PRATER.THERESA 


280 


PROPHET. SANDRA 


380 


RADLOFF. GWYNET 


583 


RANDOLPH. DENIS 


280 


RAY. THOMAS L 


883 


REGISTER. WILLI 


983 


RHODES. JULIA A 


283 


ROSEN, DEBRA J 


883 


ROSS. ANN E 


583 


ROSS. ROBERT 1 


583 


RUPP. JEFF D 


683 


SCHWARZKOPF. PE 


883 


SCOTT. MICHEL 


280 


SMITH. PAUL SAM 


583 


SPOLLEN. MICHAE 


683 


STRICKMAN, NORM 


783 


TAHIR. RASHEED 


430 


TOCHEN. DAVID K 


883 


TOURTELLOT. CHR 


883 


TREJO. LAURA 1 


383 


TRULY-JACKSON. 


480 


TWINE. PAULETTE 


683 


ULMER. DOROTHY 


583 



118 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


General Counsel (Cont'd) 


WAGNER, WILLIAM 


583 




WALLACE. DARLEN 


480 




WASHINGTON, SAN 


407 




WEST, FAITH M 


480 




WILEY, JOHN L J 


213 




WILLIS, MIRIAM 


380 




WOLF. BETSY L 


883 




WOODARD. ROCHEL 


280 


Assistant Secretary for Administration 


ALLEN, EUNICE W 


580 




ANSELL. DEBORAH 


450 




ARNOLD, WILHELM 


312 




BACH, CAROLYN R 


675 




BANKS. MAURICE 


1,400 




BARBOUR, ROBERT 


725 




BARNES. CLEMENT 


312 




BARNES. KENNETH 


615 




BATT, GAIL A 


580 




BAXTER. KATHY L 


2.165 




BERGQUIST. RAND 


800 




BLACK. SHARON L 


440 




BLACKMON. CYNTH 


850 




BLUM. JOHN C JR 


1,450 




BOECHER, HEIDI 


450 




BRADLEY. RICHAR 


725 




BRADY. RODERICK 


800 




BRIDGES. CAROLE 


423 




BROWN. JAMES M 


800 




BROWN. RICHARD 


725 




BROWN. W FRANCE 


400 




BUDNIK, JOHN E 


1,800 




BURCH. EVELYN K 


500 




BURNETT. FREDER 


300 




BYRD. LORI S 


900 




CARROLL. JAMES 


615 




CAYWOOD. KATHLE 


550 




CHAPMAN. ELWYND 


2,556 




CHILDS. HERBERT 


850 




CL^RK. WILLIAM 


250 




COFFIN, JANET C 


400 




COGGINS. COLLEE 


750 




COOKE. MARIA SA 


850 




COPE, BILLY 


500 




CROSS. LINDA L 


650 




CUNNANE, WILLIA 


252 




DEAHL. JANIS L 


328 




DEROSA. MARY F 


675 



119 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


Assistant Secretary for Administration 






(Cont'd) 


DOBBIN, JAMES E 


252 




DOMINGUEZ. LAWR 


550 




DONELAN, MARY P 


735 




DOUCETTE, CHARL 


3,021 




DUDIS. TERESA L 


500 




EPPS, LARRY DOU 


1,263 




ESPENSHADE, KAT 


700 




FALLAT, BARBARA 


900 




FERGUSON, STANL 


514 




FILLMANN, FREDE 


725 




FISHER. JACQUEL 


500 




FREED, WILLIAM 


1,400 




FRYE, ALMA L 


250 




GARNICA. DAVID 


200 




GARRATT, SANDRA 


600 




GARZA. MELISSA 


600 




GERTEL. MARTIN 


1.000 




GILCHRIST. ROCH 


250 




GOVAN, JAMES 


423 




GRANT. IZEOLA 


580 




GRASSO, FRANK J 


514 




GRIGG. CRAWFORD 


1,008 




GUADALUPE. ANNE 


440 




GUENTHER. WALTE 


700 




HACKLEY. CHARLO 


900 




HACKNEY. MARTHA 


2,165 




HAGGERTY, THOMA 


725 




HAIRSTON. MELVI 


343 




HAKES. ALLAN L 


500 




HANANEL. SAM R 


335 




HANCOCK. JOHN A 


856 




HARRIS. CHRISTI 


200 




HARRIS. OLIVIA 


400 




HARVEY. LIEUTEN 


725 




HAWKINS. JAMES 


700 




HELLER, ROBERT 


775 




HILLIARD. MINNI 


250 




HOEFER, ELIZABE 


580 




HOHEISEL. ROBER 


500 




HOLLAND, JUDY A 


500 




HORKAN. MICHAEL 


1,185 




HORKAN. NANCY G 


900 




HOWARD. CARLTON 


423 




HUGHES. PHYLLIS 


2,000 




HYATT. DEBORAH 


800 



120 







DOLLAR 


QEFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNT 


Assistant Secretary for Administration 






(Cont'd) 


INGRAM, ERNEST 


470 




INGRAM. MARGIE 


1,835 




JACKSON, RONALD 


514 




JACOB, JOHN Q 


1.000 




JEFFERSON. LINC 


383 




JENIFER, SUSAN 


475 




JOHNS, JOSEPH J 


700 




JOHNSON, AIMEE 


615 




JOHNSON. G MARA 


725 




JOHNSON, PHAEDR 


250 




JOHNSON. TAMIA 


90 




JONES. CLYDETTE 


580 




JONES. LEMUEL J 


464 




JONES, LEROY 


383 




JORDAN, DAVIS W 


675 




KANE, MICHAEL P 


750 




KARICHER, JAN B 


580 




KEENAN. MARGARE 


475 




KENNEDY. ARLENE 


725 




KERR. BRIAN R 


1,263 




KEYSER. CATHY L 


1.263 




KISH. JOHN P 


550 




KOGER, JANNIE 


725 




KORMOS. JOANNE 


360 




KRAUS. JANET A 


1.008 




LAUGHLIN. ROBER 


514 




LAW, NEAL C 


2.556 




LEIBOWITZ. IRA 


615 




LENDERKING. JEA 


550 




LEWIS. HELEN M 


475 




LIEBER. RICHARD 


700 




LITMAN. DIANE C 


1.950 




LOMAX. DARRETT 


440 




MARSH. KATHRYN 


615 




MARTIN. RITA R 


856 




MCCORKLE. POLA 


1.534 




MCDANIEL. PHYLL 


300 




MCGUIGAN. WILLI 


1.420 




MCLAUGHLIN. PAT 


500 




MILLER. BRENDA 


480 




MITCHELL, KAREN 


615 




MONTGOMERY. CLE 


514 




MOONEY. KEVIN A 


450 




MOORE. MARY LYN 


800 




MORAN. MICHAEL 


800 



121 



DOLLAR 
QEEICE NAME AMOUNT 

Assistant Secretary for Administration 

(Cont'd) MOWRY. NANCY A 600 

MULCAHY, GERLEY 400 

MYLES, CONNIE L 343 

PAES. SUZETTE B 440 

PARKER, DAVID H 514 

PATTERSON, BREN 423 

PINTO, CATHERIN 475 

PORTER. IVY D 500 

PRICE, PHYLLIS 514 

PRIVETT. LEEA 1.488 

PROPER, DAVID W 1,835 

PROSPERI, PATRI 1.000 

PUCKETT, EARL W 1,835 

PUGH. LAWRENCE 615 

RAWLS, NADINE A 580 

REILLY, FRANCIS 615 

RHEA. DESHANTA 312 

RHOADS. LINDA H 1,400 

RIES. BARBARA 735 

ROBINSON, DIANE 300 

ROBINSON. SHARO 725 

ROCKWELL. MOLLI 1,200 

ROGERS, SHIRLEY 450 

ROSCOE. CYNTHIA 400 

RUBLE, SALLY 500 

RUNETT, DARRYL 867 

SANDERSON. MICH 359 

SCHOSSLER. DEN! 580 

SCHWARTZ. SUSAN 440 

SHIVELY. THOMAS 514 

SIBLEY. MARY E 600 

SIMMONS. BETTY 580 

SIMMS. WILBERT 423 

SIMPSON. JOAN 800 

SKIPPER. KARLET 400 

SMITH. CLARA M 725 

SMITH, TERRY C 670 

SPILLENKOTHEN. 5,785 

SPRUILL. RUGENE 2,556 

STATEN. MARTHA 1.185 

STOKES, ROBERT 580 

STROZIER. LANCE 514 

SUGGS, ARETHA E 450 

SUMMERS. JOHN C 600 

SUTHERLAND. JOH 450 



122 



OFFICE 

Assistant Secretary for Administration 
(Cont'd) 



Transportation Administrative Service 
Center 



NAME 

SUTTON, CAROL A 
SWANN, RAMONA R 
TANSKY, MICHAEL 
TAPSCOTT. WILLI 
TAYLOR, EUGENE 
TAYLOR, ROBERT 
TAYLOR, SYLVIA 
TELEP, DANIEL J 
THOMPSON, LAVON 
TINSMAN. C MAR! 
TOMLINSON, LEE 
TURNER. EDWARD 
VALERIO, RAFAEL 
VESTAL, RONALD 
WALKER, DOROTHY 
WALLACE, DENISE 
WALLACE-WILSON, 
WALTERS, JOANNE 
WATKINS, CECELI 
WATKINS, DARRIN 
WEAKLEY, BARBAR 
WEAVER, FRANKLI 
WELCH, MARK T 
WHEELER. FLOREN 
WHEELER, MONICA 
WIDAWSKI, LOUIS 
WILDER, BEVERLY 
WILKINS, DOROTH 
WILLIAMS, ADA M 
WILLIAMS, WILLI 
WIRICK, GLENN W 
WOODMANSEE, JAM 
WOOLFOLK. BARBA 
ZYWUSKO. STEPHE 

BERRY, WENDELL 
BURNHAM, JONNI 
CARTER. DENISON 
COATES. YVONNE 
CONYERS. VERNON 
CORREIA. NANCY 
CREAGER. CARL D 
EUGENE. BARBARA 
FISHER. BONNIE 
GREEN. WILLIAM 



DOLLAR 
AM OUN T 

856 
250 
400 
725 
6.000 
700 
250 
450 
1.835 
550 
615 
450 
1.143 
500 
900 
1.300 
571 
514 
230 
225 
675 
383 
850 
900 
525 
1.000 
328 
1.000 
300 
550 
2,165 
500 
450 
856 

500 
1.420 
900 
750 
750 
900 
1.950 
900 
900 
900 



123 







DOLLAR 


OFFICE 


NAME 


AMOUNI 


Transportation Administrative Service 






Center (Cont'd) 


GREENE, THOMAS 


1,185 




HUG, CARRIE A 


900 




JOHNSON, ARTIS 


1,185 




LIVINGSTON, SYL 


900 




LUNDQUIST, LESL 


1,185 




LYNCH, SYLVIA M 


1,950 




MARTUS. NANCY L 


750 




MEDINA, VICKIE 


1,185 




MILLER. KEAN L 


1,300 




MONROE. SYLVIA 


383 




MORGAN, WILLIAM 


500 




OLIVER, THEODOR 


1,900 




PEMBERTON. VERD 


450 




RAMICK, GEORGE 


1,100 




SMITH. BRENDA J 


1.450 




SMITH. STEPHEN 


900 




SPITNALE. NELSO 


1.420 




SWANN. BARBARA 


700 




TITSWORTH, GARY 


1.900 




WILLIAMS. VANES 


1.185 



Question. Please provide the Committee a listing of the Department's 
advisory committees and the amount that is expected to be spent on each in 
fiscal years 1995, 1996 and estimated for 1997. 

Answer. The information follows: 

Advisory Committees 
($ thousands) 

1995 1996 1997 

Admin. Committee Name Actual Estimate Estimate 

FHWA Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System (IVHS) \J 90,000 90,000 90,000 

National Motor Carrier 20,300 40,000 40,000 

National Recreational Trails \J 3,500 28,000 28,000 

Subtotal 113,800 158,000 158,000 



NHTSA Motor Vehicle Safety Research 

Negotiated Rulemaking-Headlamps 


300 
5,831 


300 
69,744 


500 



Subtotal 


6,131 


70,044 


500 


FRA Northeast Corridor 1_/ 

Negotiated Rulemaking- Roadway Workers 
Rail Safety 


100 

80,000 








16,000 






200,000 



Subtotal 80,100 16,000 200,000 



124 



FTA Technology Development 1/ 

Subtotal 

CG Chemical Transportation. 

Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety \_l 

Lower Mississippi Waterway Safety 1/ 

National Boating Safety 1/ 

National Offshore Safety 

New York Harbor Traffic Management 

Navigation Safety 1/ 

Towing Safety 1/ 

Commercial Fishing Industry 1/ 

Merchant Marine Personnel 

Chicago Drawbridge 

Subtotal 

FAA Air Traffic Procedures 

Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics 280,000 

National Aviation Security 

Aviation Rulemaking 

Civil Tiltrotor Development \_l 

Commercial Space Transportation 

Subtotal 314,468 344,430 

SLSDC Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp !_/ 1 50 7,200 

Subtotal 150 7,200 

RSPA Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety \_l 15,913 20,000 
Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 1_/ 17,452 20,000 

Subtotal 33,365 40,000 

OST Labor-Management Partnership Council 7,000 

Minority Business Resource Center 1_/ 3,001 4,200 

Subtotal 3,001 11,200 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 10,000 

Subtotal 10,000 

Other Advisory Committees 71,726 

Grand Total 683,702 850,000 









7,000 








7,000 


690 


700 


755 


1,700 


1,700 


1,700 


1,700 


1,700 


1,700 


29,700 


29,900 


30,400 


400 


400 


400 


1,545 








31,600 


34,800 


34,800 


1,200 


1,200 


1,200 


21,000 


29,000 


30,000 


20,000 


22,000 


22,000 


23,152 








132,687 


121.400 


122,955 


800 


800 


1,00( 


280,000 


280,000 


280,00( 


6,000 


7,000 


7,00( 


20,000 


50,000 


50,00( 


6,371 


3,780 


( 


1,297 


2,850 


2,40( 



1/ Required by statute. 
2_/ Statutory earmark 



125 



TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER 

Question. The Department has included a new line item called the 
Transportation Administrative Service Center, which replaces the old Working 
Capital Fund. For fiscal year 1997, the TASC estimates a total of 
$124,800,000 to provide sen-'ices requested by the Board and outside DOT 
activities. This is a significant increase over the $95,643,000 which was the 
limitation imposed on the Working Capital fund in 1996. Please explain to the 
Committee why the Department estimates there would be a 35 percent 
increase in this activity. 

Answer. The Transportation Administrative Service Center (TASC) takes 
the functions of the existing Working Capital Fund fWCF) as its starting point. 
However, the TASC will include the non-policy, operational functions of OST 
directly financed by other sources. Beginning in FY 1997, these functions 
will be financed through the TASC and billed back to the appropriate 
customer. The purpose of this transfer is to consolidate all OST operational 
functions in TASC and have TASC serve as the locus for consolidation of 
administrative functions for DOT. The transfer includes functions now 
financed directly by the OST Salaries and Expenses appropriation which will 
be billed by the TASC fund to OST; functions now financed through 
reimbursable agreements with the operating administrations which will by 
billed by the TASC fund to the operating administrations; and functions 
financed directly by the Transportation Planning Research & Development 
(TPR&D) appropriation which will be billed by the TASC fund to the 
TPR&D appropriation. In addition, increases are requested for additional 
services. Following is a break-out of these changes: 

I. FY1996WCF $95,643,000 

II. APPROPRIATIONS TRANSFERRJNG IN: 

OST Salaries & Expenses 7, 1 37,000 

Reimbursable 10,608.000 

Transportation Planning Research & Development 4,111 ,000 

III. PROGRAM INCREASES: 

Pay Costs 974,000 

Inflation 2,375,000 

FY 1997 Non-recurring requirements 5,700,000 

Dockets Management System Operations 1,055,000 

Existing Automated Systems Operations 1,740,000 

IV. PROGRAM DECREASES: 

FTE Reductions to meet E.O. Level -2,043.000 

FY 1996 Non-recurring requirements -2.500.000 

FY 1 997 REQUESTED LEVEL $ 1 24,800,000 



126 



TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER 

Question. Please provide the amount assessed each agency for Working 
Capital Fund costs in fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, and the estimated 
costs to each agency for the Transportation Administrative Service Center in 
1997. 

Answer. The information is provided on the following charts. 



127 



(0<oO'-o)«-»-u30<NfNa><D^o>inoo>»~oi 



O - 00 <D 



O '- o 



<l ■" "^ 






la t - m 



O •* to CO 



o o 



<l Tt eo O) — CO O) 



•-CNO tniDCMin^fMO 






im 

iiii 



mi 

5*5fi 









u> in <o 



— tt <o t- 



00 o> 



= S' 



®<oinio«)Ojoo ^r)0)m — (T>^r)<o 



en (o ^ •- in O) 






to o> r) o 



v> (J h- > u. S 



So _ 
I 2 5 



S § L . 



;: ol o 



£ e !t C o 



5§ 2 

„ I „ 5 t t o 
I) i < > > >■ •- 

y < s K K t- u) 

X CE !2 = = = ui 






uj b 2 ,2 Z m U ^ 



<? < 2 5 = S 



KiZao.Q.izpm 



- ^ ,_ « Jo 35 * 

uj y oc o O O ^ 

" 2 O 2 ? Z £ 

I- Si O Q O 5 

1 2 W =! =! :J O 
■ " ^ O 3 U S 



u^to_i2uQ,|Qa,a, 



128 



oomomor^OO 
ix> rt m r~. ID a> 
pi 6 --■ 



®^i0'<»in<orgoo)0t--0)r-.oo 



— OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 



iooin^.-inooooocN(DO<Noooor-moooiNOi 






O 00 (O to 



OmCNJOtOOO^O 



oinoooo^o<o 






o ^ o o 



— m o O - r^ ir> 

Tt OO 00 O O) rv (O 



<0 O tM lO 



O O) r- •* O 



« to 









00 00 U) 



^^JS-'S 



is- 



5 £ 



O 5 g 



> z i 



o o S Q J ,„ 

<J 1^ 3 lu S ^ 

W i < uj O 3 ° 

S 5 S ri w O w 

S: "J o 9 2 u u. 

% Z S ? CD U < 

S D S: m u < o 



SJ o O a: 
(J uj O [^ 



C: 5 <" i a 



<r <c a I E K 



^^t^si: 



in t -J 



O S -1 



O D 



>- O O t; O 



ffo 



i5 5iS 

'5 5 S H 5 >. 



129 



oooooooooo 



'-rMO^<NOOOO<D 



- o o ^ o o o 



O O CD O O O 



oo-<ooonooo 



(Or-JnOOOOOOO 



u>enTro><ominoo*-ir>OiOrg«>tDO«-ioooo 
(DO>cor^CDineocn--r)coinoi»nmcocx3«-u>fM 

rgooooooiooooooooooooo 

O) 
y,|oO'<JO).-'<»OOOOOr~rgOCMOOOfMO 

m 9 

!«tina>ooo<Oin--*-eooa>tD«-(DOin'-Ooo 
^" ^ " '^ " 

5|»-ff>'-r^O'-Of^OOOinOr^r^OOrNto»n 

ll 

in — 



oroootNioCTio — 



•^-intNOOinoO 
CM ■« o — - 



O O CM CM o O O 






o o in .- O o - 






rf <" 3 

m 2 n " 

uj O ,3 Z 

I ff 2 S 

'8 P < 2 



z tt 5 5 o < 

8 i S s o z 2 

U < Z S 2 o O 

< O D u. in (J ►- 



^1 

■s 

z s 
° s 

1 5 

li 

Z S 

11 

II 



5 J 
in ° 



<n - CM 01 .- ^ 



^lio<7>c«jcnio»-inoioO 



< IN O) IN to 



O — ooocNr^iooc^cniDmo 



*-COCstlDtO"tlO»-0001COroO 



O'-ioO'tfor^iD 



O O O — O) CD .- 






ID D •- O) CD 0> O) ■ 






00 « O CN •<» 



inmcor-'tor^r-co 

CDOOm'tCOCDOOCM 



y "; u ji; J 

ill" 



y 
y < 

2 s 



e5 






Q oc I- <n 0- 

2 S 

O O 

O O 



O w 



3 IE -^ iu <C (C 



<= ■-. o 2 -J K 5 
< = o i s oS 

$ S o 3 in o z 



130 



OJOJintDCNOOOOOUJOOO 






OOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO <D 



O - O 00 o 



O O O O O) 



OOOOOOinOOOO 



Otoo^'^OOOOO 



O ^t 't 00 O <T> 



O CM - O O O 



ooorgf^m— »-oooo 






Oiooinooooo 



co^oor^r^oo<NO 



O o> n o O O Ol 



OOOO'tOtOO'-^noOrv-oOOl'-l 



f^orM(7>»ncN»-r^O'-or^ 
(Oooiomr^ro — —rg.- IV 

5 
ol 

QCMOTtTt-r-rv-mooOP) 



(O - lO 



o o n in o o 
t o — - 



(D •« <0 .- 



o-mmoooointNoo 



o o in .- o o 



r-ootoooomro^o 



OO'ttocoooifttDcooocnaio 
ocn^jtotDrotDtDinn^fM 



in.-co^o<oo(^o 



5 
2 ►- 



. 2 (- 






.O lO J)j g ^ 

^ tt O 5 < 

§ « 3 hJ y 

UJ < D Oi O 

U» Q. ID t- > 






2 2 5 



S o 
u> u 



;i 



CO .- tn to i 



o O •- in o 



to ^ CM IV 



00 (O CM O to. 01 o 



in.-<onoo<DncM.-<o 



<o (O n <o I 



ii E 



- " S J *? S ?: i 5 5 



£5 



>botO-,^-"-i 
i-o-iiZizpoiS 

tou??o?o?<oS 



131 



--tjioi^o>--r-.o)ooio 






o t tn t 



o o o o 



o o o o o o o 



oooooooooooooooooo ol 



OtMOOOfOOOOinO-OOOO 



omooocMoooooooo-o 



(0-<DOi^-r)tooooinottOOOU)fNt~.oo)OOOr- — OOOOOO 






Or^rgoOtOOOCTitOOO 



Of^r^oo<oojrotntoOr^'-00^'-to 



OOCNO<T>0-Or)OOOOO^OiOO-tO"»OOOOr-000000 



o^ooor^inoocooo 



U> CM O fO - 



O ID O ^ O) — O 



OinoooO'-tNOO^r-o>«>r^iNOoooo «l 



>t<DOr» — eor-O- — --O — O-r^Olooo-OOO 



CO 00 r^ o> 



^ in CO o O 



O to en CN CT) 01 o 



0)cooiooom'«ooo)'-tn<Noo)onooor~<oa)o 



^ — .- O) to to 



O <D ■« ro 00 



O00O«»l0<N0)Or0OOO oil 






8^ 



a 5 

£ s 

in ^ 

^ "C tn 

O 3 {2 



S z o 
E ? ^ <= I 

J Q O O I 



5 5 O 2 

^ ° c " ^ o 

S - > 5 ^ u 

2 z 5 3; g o 

oc < u « 

< tt 111 < 



3 ?< GC OC 

-> 2 9: le 



^ s 



" 2 



3q| 



UJ 5 UJ > -J 



3 Ul OC 5 "^ t 
CD (3 5 s ^5 "■ 

? 3 ° i g 5 



O 2 ^ 

2^i§ 

9 z tt £ 



CL m " > C 5 9: 



2 i 



iiiii 



II 



132 



OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS 

Question. Under the Salaries and Expenses account, the Department is 
estimating that the Office of the Secretary will receive $4,300,000 in offsetting 
cash collections from federal sources. For what purposes will the Secretary be 
receiving these funds, and from whom will these flinds be received. 

Answer. The estimate includes reimbursement from the Department's 
Operating Administrations for the General Counsel's Honors Attorney 
program, the DOT newsletter, and the Office of Drug Enforcement and 
Program Compliance. Additionally, reimbursement from other government 
agencies include, technical management, training, and financial assistance in 
the field of transportation for Saudi Arabia, and contract appeals hearings. 

TRAVEL BUDGET 

Question. Please distribute the travel budget request of $361,000 for the 
Office of the Secretary to each of the individual offices. Please provide the 
distribution of travel funds for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and estimated for 1997. 

Answer. A travel table follows: 



(dollars in 


thousands) 








FY 1995 


FY 1996 


FY 1997 


Office 


Actual 


Estimate 


Request 


General Counsel 


58 


37 


37 


Transportation Policy 


14 


8 


8 


Aviation & International Affairs 


98 


85 


85 


Budget and Programs 


17 


5 


5 


Governmental Affairs 


11 


6 


6 


Administration 


36 


26 


26 


Public Affairs 


40 


4 


4 


Immediate Office of the Secretary 


150 


135 


135 


Office of the Deputy Secretary 


11 


11 


11 


Intermodalism 


54 


26 


26 


Executive Secretariat 


1 


1 


1 


Contract Appeals Board 


10 


3 


3 


Civil Rights 1/ 


277 








Small &. Disadvantaged Business Util. 











Minority Business Resource Center 1/ 


58 








Intelligence & Security 


36 


H. 


14 


Total 


871 


361 


361 



1/ Funded outside the Salaries & Expenses account beginning in FY 1996. 



133 



Question. Please list for the Transportation Administrative Service Center 
a comparative full time equivalency in 1997 versus the Working Capital full 
time equivalency for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. 

Answer. The Working Capital Fund (WCF) actual full time equivalency 
for fiscal year 1995 was 287, and in fiscal year 1996 it is budgeted at 299. The 
fiscal year 1997 Transportation Administrative Service Center (TASC) request 
of 330 includes the consolidation of the multiple OST appropriations currently 
in TASC as follows: 

I. FY 1996 WCF 299 

II. APPROPRIATIONS TRANSFERRING IN: 

OST Salaries & Expenses 49 

Reimbursable 24 

Transportation Planning Research & Development 3 

III. PROGRAM INCREASES: 

Dockets Management System Operations 14 

IV. PROGRAM DECREASES: 

FTE Reductions to meet E.O. Level ;52 

FY 1 997 REQUESTED LEVEL 330 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH 

Question. Minority business outreach provides contractual support to 
assist minority business firms, entrepreneurs and venture groups in securing 
contracts and subcontracts that involve federal funding. In addition, it 
provides support to historically Black and Hispanic colleges. Please provide 
the Committee a listing of all the historically Black and Hispanic colleges that 
have received fiinding in fiscal year 1995, 1996 and estimated in 1997 under 
the minority business outreach program. 

Answer. The colleges and universities that received funding during fiscal 
years 1995 and 1996 were: 

Historicallv Black Colleges and Universities: Alabama A«&M University, 
Normal, AL; Albany State College, Albany, GA; Central State University, 
Wilberforce, OH; Fisk University, Nashville, TN; Florida A&M University, 
Tallahassee, FL; Hampton University, Hampton, VA; Southern University 
and A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Hispanic Serving Institutions: The City College of New York, New York, 
NY; Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX; University of Puerto 
Rico, Humacao, Puerto Rico; University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX; 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Del Mar College, Corpus 
Christi, TX; California State University, Los Angeles, CA; Miami-Dade 
Community CollegeAVolfson Campus, Miami, FL. 



134 



During fiscal year 1997, OSDBU plans to continue to work with minority 
educational institutions as part of our marketing, outreach and training efforts 
geared toward facilitating the participation of small, women-owned and small 
disadvantaged businesses in transportation-related contracts. Funding in the 
amount of $500,000 to $800,000 is planned for this effort. 

Question. In addition, please provide a listing of all those Chambers of 
Commerce, trade association, and other public and private entities that will 
receive funding under the special program initiatives. This information should 
be for fiscal years 1994 through 1996 and estimated for 1997. Please provide 
specific names and the amount of funding, with a brief description of the 
purpose of the grants. 

Answer. The primary purpose of the contracts and agreements is to 
support the Department's marketing, training, and outreach efforts to 
encourage the use of United States companies and promote greater 
transportation-related opportunities for small, women-owned, and small 
disadvantaged businesses (SDBs). These contracts and agreements support and 
enhance public/private partnerships and the communication links between the 
Department and its recipients, contractors, subcontractors and SDBs. In 
addition, they promote networking with and referral to technical assistance 
providers that service SDBs. 

Listed below by fiscal year are the public and private entities. Chambers of 
Commerce, and trade associations that received funding. 

FY 1994 

Dun & Bradstreet, $2,910; Canon, U.S.A. $1,032; Data Management, 
$1,500 ; National Service Program, $10,000; National Forum for Black Public 
Administrators, $23,000; Valley Financial Group, $24,000, Hispanic 
Yearbook, $4,000; Murray Resource Directory, $3,850; Data Base 
Engineering, $3,000; Bradlee Johnson, $3,000; RP Exhibit Service, $296; 
National Association of Black Procurement Professionals, $150; Marketplace 
Production, $600; Coastal Georgia Opportunity Fair, $180; CBOF, $950; Host 
South, Inc., $115; MSMPC, $550; BBS Expo '94, $100; GES Exposition 
Service, $84; VBOF '94, $450; Aegir Systems, $287,652; AMAC Conference, 
$450, Quality Support Inc., $270, Eventions, Inc., $600; COMTO, $70; 
Seminars Int., $175; Latin American Management Association, $121,500; 
Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, $181,282; Autoflex, $75,000; 
World Data, $1 1,000; Women Construction Owners & Executives, $95,000; 
Texas Association of Minority Business Enterprises, $95,000; Hispanic- 
American Chamber of Commerce, $95,000; New Jersey Association of 
Women Business Owners, $95,000; Latin Chamber of Commerce, U.S.A., 
$70,000; Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, $70,000; and Arizona Hispanic 
Chamber of Commerce, $70,000; National Association of Minority 
Contractors, $95,000, and Black Business Association, $95,000. 



135 



FY 1995 

Dun & Bradstreet, $2,910; Canon, U.S.A. $1,032; Data Management, 
$1,500, JDG Associates, $17,489; reimbursable agreement with the Census 
Bureau, $75,000; reimbursable agreement with the Small Business 
Administration, $50,000; KIOSK Project, $4,000; Bradlee Johnson, $1,800; 
Neal Gross, $500; Latin American Management Association, $10,000; Valley 
Financial Group, $24,000; National Small Business Council, $10,600; RP 
Exhibit Service, $170; Lasting Images & Associates, $23,408; VSBDC 
Conference, $195; Transportation Research Board, $900; MS Procurement 
Fair, $51; IVHS Consortium, $240; WCOE, $475; Conv. Display Service, 
Inc., $44; Small Business Administration, $230, VBOF, $450; Latin American 
Management Association, $223,000; RP Exhibit Serv., $85; AMAC, $200; 
Exhibit Works, $500; AMAC, $800; White House Conference on Small 
Business, $1,500; GES Expo Serv., $363; LIAA, Inc., $1,446; Interracial 
Council for Business Opportunity, $212,060; Certificate Plaque Kits, $856, 
Federal Procurement Fair, $90; MED Week, $600, McLean Rentals, $820, 
United Wholesalers, $516; Nationwide Paper Company, $332; Women 
Construction Owners & Executives, $95,000; Texas Association of Minority 
Business Enterprises, $95,000; Hispanic-American Chamber of Commerce, 
$95,000; New Jersey Association of Women Business Owners, $95,000; Latin 
Chamber of Commerce, U.S.A., $70,000; Metropolitan Chamber of 
Commerce, $70,000; and Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, $70,000. 

FY 1990 

Dun & Bradstreet, $3,075; Canon, U.S.A. $1,032; Data Management, 
$1,500, Lloyd Jacob, $5,000; reimbursable agreement with Federal Highway 
Administration, $5,000; Interagency agreement with Smithsonian Institutions, 
$5,000; general working agreement with the Volpe National Transportation 
Systems Center, $75,000; Valley Financial Group, $24,00; BMC Inc., 
$15,000; Howard University, $750; Small Business Administration, $345; 
National SBIR Conference, $150; WTS National Conf., $700; AMAC, $450; 
VBOF, $175; Latin American Management Association, $204,700 (This 
funding includes reimbursement for the costs of Marketplace conference and 
training seminar facilities, follow-up evaluations and surveys of participating 
SDBs, advertising, postage, printing etc.); Interracial Council for Business 
Opportunity, $52,880; American Indian Science and Engineering Society, 
$48,000; Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, $62,500; Women 
Construction Owners & Executives, $48,000; Latin Chamber of Commerce, 
U.S.A., $62,500; Texas Association of Minority Business Enterprises, 
$48,000; Hispanic-American Chamber of Commerce, $62,500; Arizona 
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, $48,000. 

FY 1997 (Estimated) 

OSDBU plans to continue working with Chambers of Commerce, trade 
associations and other public and private entities to support the Department's 
marketing, outreach and training efforts to encourage the use of United States 



companies and promote greater transportation-related opportunities for small, 
women-owned, and small disadvantaged businesses. Funding in the amount of 
$1.5 to $2 million is planned for this effort. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER -- LOAN PROGRAM 

Question. Please detail for the Committee how the $400,000 for 
administration is expensed. How much is for personnel compensation, 
employee benefits, travel, and similar type expenses? 

Answer. This amount represents fees and reimbursements for 
administrative expenses incurred by the lead banks for completing the analysis 
and underwriting on loan applications, and the day to day operating costs of 
the program. The banks are also reimbursed for travel costs associated with 
onsite reviews of applicants and borrowers located outside the banks' market 
areas and to represent DOT at marketing, outreach and training efforts such as 
Marketplaces and other small business conferences and seminars. The banks 
are not reimbursed for expenses incurred for personnel compensation and 
employee benefits. 

At DOT'S maximum capacity of $15 million in loan funding, expenses for 
fiscal year 1997 are estimated as follow: 

Fees and reimbursements for administration expenses $325,000 

Travel reimbursement 25,000 

Non-scheduled reimbursements, such as legal fees 50.000 

Total $400,000 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

Question. Under major initiatives for the transportation planning, research 
and development account, the negotiation with Canada on air travel and open 
skies bilateral agreements with nine additional aviation partners are listed. 
Please distinguish the assistance provided by TPR&D in these areas versus 
that which is handled by the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
Affairs. 

Answer. A portion of the TPR«feD request entitled "Developing and 
Coordinating Aviation and International Policy" is provided by and for the 
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. This portion of our 
request provides critical research support and data collection, analysis and 
evaluation used during specific negotiations as well as in the development of 
the U.S. positions on international transportation issues. In fiscal year 1997 
we plan to apply these funds in the development of an international aviation 
economic model, to develop a method to estimate foreign city-pair market 
data, study the alliances and commercial arrangements between international 
airline partners and to expand our transportation trade promotion activities. 



137 



RESEARCH ON TRADE PROMOTION 

Question. Under ongoing research projects, the Department has listed that 
it will continue to expand and support sale of U.S. goods abroad. Please 
describe for the Committee what assistance is provided for the continuation 
and expansion of U.S. goods abroad. What particular goods are part of this 
activity, and what particular countries are affected? 

Answer. DOT continues to be active in promoting the interests of U.S. 
business in the sale of transportation goods and services throughout the world, 
with emphasis on Asian-Pacific and Latin American markets. DOT works 
cooperatively with the Departments of Commerce and State and with the 
financing agencies and organizations (World Bank, Trade and Development 
Agency, Export-Import Bank, the multilateral development banks, etc.) to 
provide its technical expertise to the promotion of advanced products that 
support, for example, the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Intelligent 
Transportation Systems (ITS). In addition, through trade discussions, high- 
level meetings, and letters and telephone calls to foreign decision-makers 
requesting full consideration of U.S. bids to supply transportation products and 
services (such as aircraft, rail locomotives, automobiles and consulting 
services), the DOT stands with the U.S. transportation industry to support 
foreign sales and expand and protect U.S. job markets. 

Question. One ongoing research project is studying the trends in service 
price in comparison to international markets. What particular markets are 
being studied, and what has been the result to date of this research. 

Answer. A consulting firm, Gellman Research Associates, Inc. (GRA), has 
been retained to update an earlier study prepared for the Department on the 
subject of international airline code sharing. 

Code sharing occurs when one carrier places its designator code on 
service operated by another carrier. This practice is generally one facet of a 
more comprehensive cooperative relationship between two carriers whereby 
the carriers attempt to provide a seamless service as though it was being 
provided by a single operator. This typically includes better service 
coordination, the use of common airport facilities and joint marketing of the 
product. In some instances even more broad alliances are formed where the 
carriers in essence "merge" their operations although they cannot technically 
merge because such activity is constrained by national ownership laws. 

This practice is rapidly expanding in international markets as a number of 
very broad-based alliances have been formed. This is allowing airlines to 
offer and market an improved service to literally tens of thousands of city-pair 
markets around the world that have, until now, been inadequately serviced 
with poorly coordinated and marketed interline service. In addition to 
improved services, this practice has major competitive implications for price. 



138 



as alliances are now beginning to compete with one another in many thousands 
of the markets that they each now serve on a code-sharing basis. 

The initial study on this subject conducted for the Department by GRA is 
the definitive work to date on the concept. GRA assembled a top-notch team, 
that included dedicated in-house experts and other outside experts in 
developing models, evaluating airline distribution, and computer reservations 
systems, bilateral agreements and other issues. 

But GRA's initial study was based on data that reflected the very early 
stages of the code sharing phenomena in international markets. We therefore 
have engaged GRA to update the study based on more current information that 
is now available and to include in its evaluation newly formed alliances. GRA 
is also considering the feasibility of evaluating the effect of alliances on 
stimulating traffic demand and on prices. 

Question. How much funding is requested for ftirther development and 
study of the civil use of the Global Positioning System satellite navigation 
system? 

Answer. The Department has requested $250,000 for Radionavigation and 
Positioning which includes further development and study of the civil use of 
the Global Positioning System (GPS). This money will be used for the 
preparation and publication of the Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP), and 
for the development of a GPS R«feD Information Base and other efforts to 
support the Department's responsibility to coordinate and minimize cost and 
duplication of Federal civil use of GPS and its augmentations. 

The FRP is published to provide information on the management of those 
Federally provided radionavigation systems used by both the military and civil 
sectors. It supports the planning, programming, and implementing of air, 
marine, land, and space navigation systems to meet the requirements shown in 
the President's budget submission to Congress. This plans is the official 
source of radionavigation policy and planning for the Federal Government, 
and has been prepared biennially with the assistance of other Government 
agencies since 1980. 

The Department has been designated as the lead Federal agency for civil 
GPS matters and, in cooperation with other agencies, is to promote domestic 
and international acceptance of GPS and Federal GPS augmentations, as well 
as coordinate Federal civil augmentations to minimize cost and duplications. 
The R&D information base and other studies will assist the Department in 
promoting GPS and minimize barriers to fiill realization of the benefits of the 
satellite system. This role is consistent with a September 1994 General 
Accounting Office report urging that a more coordinated government wide 
approach be taken in managing differential GPS. 

Question. How much of the $170,000 for studies is spent in-house, and 
how much is spent for contracts? Please list all contracts let by the 



139 



transportation planning, research and development account that are above 
$50,000 for fiscal years 1995, 1996 and estimated for 1997. 

Answer. It is expected that the entire $170,000 will be spent for contract 
support. However, that support may or may not be in above $50,000 
increments. In fact, there were no contracts above $50,000 let in either fiscal 
years 1995, or 1996. Unlike many typical R&D efforts that take years to 
complete, we find in the aviation area that our need for research support is 
more often likely to be intense, expert analysis of certain traffic segments that 
are completed in a matter of weeks or months not years. Hence, we have more 
but smaller R&D contracts to support our aviation and international initiatives. 

Question. Under transportation planning, research and development, 
$1,000,000 is requested for the development of GPS augmentation. How did 
you determine that the $1,000,000 would be an "annual recurring cost" during 
the production of the next-generation GPS satellites? Of the currently 
estimated $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 attributed as the annual cost, who pays 
the difference, since TPR&D only pays $1,000,000? How is this request 
different from GPS augmentation funding that is requested within the Federal 
Aviation Administration's budget? 

Answer. The particular line item in TPR&D is for the development and 
procurement of the second Civil frequency on the GPS Block IIP satellites. 
The initial DOD estimate for this feature was $5-$ 10 million annually, but 
contract award resulted in an annual cost averaging $3-$4 million over the life 
of the contact. The actual funding for FY 97, pending Congress approving 
DOD entering into a multi-year contract, will be $4,732,874. If Congress does 
not approve the multi-year spending the cost for FY 97 will increase to 
$5,547,700. 

When sufficient satellites are operational, the second Civil frequency will be 
used by all modes of transportation, the weather service, surveyors, and 
farmers to improve the accuracy of the GPS signal by eliminating the error 
introduced by the portion of the atmosphere known as the Ionosphere. This 
will result in an improvement in location accuracy of 6 to 50 meters depending 
on the receiver's location, time of day, time of year, and time within the 
sunspot cycle (an 1 1 -year phenomenon). In addition, the second frequency - if 
designed to be used independently from the basic GPS signal - will add 
frequency availability and therefore reliability for Civil users as a protection 
against jamming (both intentional and inadvertent). 

It is the Department's intention to request the Federal beneficiaries of the 
second Civil frequency on GPS to share the difference between the $1,000,000 
TPR&D requested and the actual amount for FY 97. It is intended that the 
balance of the cost for the second Civil fi-equency in the remaining years (FY 
98 through FY 07) be paid through the DOT's budget. The balance of the 
payments for the option total $23,663,127 where our FY 98 budget will 



140 



include a request for $4,219,530, while the request for the remaining 9 years 
will average $2,160,400. 

The Federal Aviation Administration's augmentation budget is primarily 
directed towards their procurement efforts for their Wide-Area Augmentation 
System (WAAS) and Local-Area Augmentation System (LAAS). WAAS and 
LAAS provide accuracy, integrity and availability augmentations to GPS 
through a system of ground reference stations and signals broadcasted from 
geostationary satellites or local stations. These systems will be become 
operational in the 1998-2005 time frame. 

The second civil frequency will provide corrections for ionospheric errors 
and some increased availability, but directly at the receiver without a system 
of ground reference stations beginning, about the year 2005. These features 
will provide benefits to many user groups on the ground, even when WAAS 
and LAAS are operational. WAAS and LAAS will still be required for 
aviation purposes even with the second frequency availability. 

TPR&D requested $1,000,000 will fund only the second Civil frequency 
augmentation to the GPS Block IIP satellite constellation because the 
anticipated benefits cross all transportation modes, as well as non- 
transportation users. 

1996 OLYMPICS 

Question. Please provide, by agency and account for fiscal years 1994, 
1995, and 1996 the amount support provided for the 1996 Summer Olympic 
Games in Atlanta, Georgia. Include both formula funds spent and 
discretionary grants. 

Answer. The information is provided on the following table: 



141 



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OLYMPIC GAMES IN ATLANTA 

(In thousands of dollars) 

Organization FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Operating Expenses 330 2,200 

Planning and providing security and other coordinative activities for coastal 
events (e.g. sailing) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Operations 1,769 

(Air traffic controllers, safety inspectors and security to handle increase in 
air traffic) 

Facilities & Equipment 150 350 

(Portable air traffic control towers and related equipment to handle increase 
in air traffic) 

Federal Highway Administration 

Federal-Aid to Highways 

- Advanced transportation 33,559 43,431 14,645 
management systems 

(Multi-modal information system through devices such as kiosks, the 
Internet, personal computers, television, and in-vehicle displays) 

- Traveler information showcase 14,000 

(Intelligent Transportation System technology will be used to collect and 
disseminate current transportation information to the traveler) 

- Atlanta driver advisory system 7,240 
(ADAS) 

(Communication projects that will test real-time transportation information 
from GDOT ATMS to 200 vehicles) 

- Commute connections 2,600 
(A telephone network for employers to call for information and assistance in 
establishing alternative transportation programs and information on street 
restrictions) 

- Accelerated highway 96,620 84,550 2,786 
construction and landscaping 

projects 



142 



Qreanization FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 

Federal Highway Administration (cont.) 

(Construction of 1 3 road and bridge projects, nine landscaping projects, two 
express lane projects, 10 pedestrian and bike projects, and one signing 
project) 

Fedgrql Railroad Administration 

Office of the Administrator 10,400 

(Installation of emergency response software and training of fire, police and 
other emergency personnel in the Operation Response hazmat incident 
response program) 



Federal Transit Administration 








Formula Grants 








- Bus delivery and operating costs 





10,400 





- Alternative fuel buses and capital 





23,500 





improvements (includes $3.5M 








Congestion Mitigation / Air 








Quality funds transferred from 








FHWA) 








- Paralympics 





4,600 





- Rail car overhaul 





6,700 





Transit Planning & Research 








- Planning grant (ARC) 





1,000 





- Transit Traveler Center 





1,500 





(MARTA) 








Discretionary Grants 








- Rail Car overhaul 





19,000 





- Intelligent Transportation System 





2,000 






FTA funds will cover the costs of planning, delivery and temporary use of 
transit vehicles borrowed from transit agencies across the nation; purchase of 
alternative fuel buses and construction of fijeling facilities, pedestrian 
walkways, intermodal improvements to Decatur Station; and technical 
assistance to meet special transportation need 



143 



SICK BUILDING 

Question. The Nassif Building, which houses most of the DOT employees 
has recently been declared a "sick building". What costs are involved in 
refurbishing, retrofitting, and otherwise putting the building back to meet 
OSHA standards? What are the estimated costs in fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 
each of the outyears beyond 1997 that will require funding for mitigation? 
Please detail how much of this funding will come directly from the 
Department of Transportation, and how much will be expended by the General 
Services Administration. 

Answer. Our consultant experts declared that DOT has met the criteria for 
"sick building syndrome" based on their exams, interviews, and test results. 
The consultants did, however, differentiate between sick building syndrome 
and building related illness. To date they have not established that DOT has 
building related illness. In addition, based on both OSHA's report and our 
consultant reports, DOT has not exceeded any OSHA standards. 

Our consultants estimate approximately $3 to $5 million dollars will be 
required to mitigate building system deficiencies and perform an overall 
cleanup of the building. Currently negotiations are underway between DOT, 
GSA. and Nassif Associates to detail mitigation required and estimate time 
lines which will dictate costs. 

Question. Since the existing lease on the Nassif Building expires in the 
year 2000, has any analysis been done on the cost-effectiveness of these 
mitigation expenses? What thought has been given to the possibility of 
moving out of the Nassif Building upon expiration of the lease? 

Answer. Based upon our investigation of building systems, most of the 
mitigating of deficiencies revolves around lack of maintenance by the building 
owner over the years. We are enforcing lease clauses to bring systems up to 
an overall cleanliness level and then place these systems upon an approved, 
aggressive preventive maintenance plan. Currently GSA has an FY 1997 lease 
prospectus at 0MB to competitively acquire space to meet the Departments 
needs. 

UNITED STATES-JAPAN BILATERALS 

Question. There is universal agreement that the U.S.-Japan market is 
underserved. With the world's two largest economies, the available air service 
is less than one half of that between the United States and London. What is 
your timetable for resolving this deficiency? 

Answer. According to our data for 1995, 56,965 flights operated between 
the United States and the United Kingdom. 58,926 flights operated between 
the United States and Japan. Based on this measure of service, it appears that 



144 



about the same level of service was provided in these markets in 1995. 
Nevertheless, we would not disagree with your view that the U.S.-Japan 
market is underserved. Two major factors account for this. 

The major reason is Japan's aviation policy. Although we would like to 
open up the Japanese market to permit more service, such an opening requires 
negotiations with Japan, which has a very different aviation policy than the 
United States. Whereas we seek to eliminate restrictions and permit market 
forces to govern air services, the Japanese favor a much more regulated and 
protectionist approach. Japan's desire to limit competition by U.S. airlines 
hinders our ability to negotiate expanded opportunities. 

In recent years Japan has focused increasing attention on U.S. operations 
beyond Japan. Japan argues that U.S. carriers place undue reliance on local 
Japan-Asia traffic, so called "fifth freedom traffic", in their operations that 
extend beyond Japan to other Asian points. Japan has indicated that one of 
their objectives in any passenger negotiations would be to obtain U.S. 
acceptance of constraints on these existing U.S. rights. The ability to operate 
such beyond services is important to certain U.S. carriers, namely United 
Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Federal Express, all of which have hubs at 
Tokyo and a network of beyond services. 

Japanese negotiators have indicated that they would be willing to permit 
U.S. carriers better access to the new Kansai International Airport at Osaka but 
in exchange for acceptance of constraints on existing U.S. rights to operate 
beyond Japan. We do not believe such an exchange would be in the overall 
interest of the United States. Rather than trade new rights for restrictions on 
existing rights, we would like to exchange new opportunities for air services 
by both sides. We achieved such a result in recent cargo negotiations. It is 
unclear whether Japanese desires for new passenger rights to serve the United 
States are sufficient to provide a basis for a similar kind of exchange in the 
passenger area. 

The second factor accounting for lack of service is the airport situation in 
Japan and the lack of available landing slots, especially at Japan's largest 
international airport, Narita, which serves Tokyo. You asked about our 
timetable for increasing services. Despite the difficulties outlined above, we 
are moving forward with a process that we hope will lead to productive 
passenger negotiations. On April 29 and 30, U.S. and Japanese aviation 
officials met informally and made substantial progress in resolving a number 
of outstanding passenger issues. Further talks are scheduled for June 3-4. We 
hope to resolve the remaining outstanding issues at that time. 

Once the immediate issues are resolved, we anticipate the next step will be 
framework talks aimed at setting an agenda for passenger negotiations. It is 
difficult to predict with any certainty how soon we will begin, or end, 
passenger talks. I can assure you that expanding air service opportunities in 
the Japanese market is one of our highest priority objectives. 



145 



Question. As you know, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber wrote to you last 
September about the urgency of getting more access to Japan for Portland 
International Airport, with a carrier willing to begin expanded service to Japan 
immediately. But we will not have any progress until the United States 
negotiates a new agreement. Are there particular problems in the passenger or 
cargo area? Please describe. 

Answer. As outlined in the answer to the previous question, Japan's 
resistance to opening up new opportunities for air services is a major obstacle 
to negotiating an agreement that permits expanded services. We are, however, 
moving in the right direction. Successful cargo talks were concluded at the 
end of April. We are now working with the Japanese to resolve a number of 
outstanding passenger issues. Once these issues are resolved we anticipate 
moving into framework talks aimed at setting an agenda and a structure for 
passenger negotiations. 

Question. The idea of expanding service has been endorsed by the Port of 
Portland, which says the region is "keenly interested in additional routes to 
serve our trade and transportation needs." Governor Kitzhaber already has 
pointed out that nonstop service between Japan and Portland has led to nearly 
$1 billion in investment by Japanese firms in the greater Portland area. Let me 
quote Governor Kitzhaber's letter directly: "Yet, under the current bilateral 
agreement, our region is closed out of the Kansai area, one of Japan's most 
dynamic marketplaces." Why haven't we made more and better progress when 
there is so much potential for expanded commerce? 

Answer. Like Governor Kitzhaber, we, too, are frustrated that more 
progress has not been made. The cargo agreement reached in April represents 
a significant step in the right direction. We are now focused on obtaining 
expanded opportunities in the passenger area and hope that our current efforts 
will lead to productive passenger talks later this year. 

Question. The Governor of Oregon, the Mayor of Portland, the Portland 
Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Portland, the Pacific Rim Trade 
Association, and more than 1,500 other political and business leaders 
nationwide are on record saying they want more passenger air service between 
the United States and Japan. Doesn't the policy of more passenger air service 
serve the interests of all air carriers? 

Answer. We, too, want more passenger air services between the United 
States and Japan. It is apriority objective of the Department. However, in 
our striving to achieve this objective we must contend with Japan's 
protectionist approach to aviation. We have begun a process that we hope will 
lead to passenger talks later this year. In any talks, you may be assured that 
the United States will seek to expand opportunities for all U.S. carriers in the 
U.S.-Japan market. 



146 



Question. There was an excellent model when the United States and Japan 
arrived at an agreement in the cargo talks, yet the passenger issue never came 
up at the summit. The President was silent on the issue. Why was that? 
When can we expect talks to begin about expanding service to more flights 
and more cities? Don't we risk losing the momentum that we gained with the 
success of the cargo talks by any delay in the start of talks on passenger 
service? 

Answer. My understanding is that during the summit Prime Minister 
Hashimoto raised the subject of aviation and indicated a desire to begin 
passenger negotiations. I believe the President indicated that before such talks 
could begin the two sides needed to clear up a number of outstanding issues in 
the passenger area. Informal talks aimed at doing that took place April 29-30, 
1996. Although substantial progress was made at the talks, some issues 
remain. The two sides agreed to meet June 3-4 to try to resolve these 
remaining issues. Once these outstanding issues are resolved, we anticipate 
that framework talks will take place to set an agenda and structure for 
passenger negotiations. 

Question. A national study by Coopers & Lybrand found that expanding 
flights between the United States and Japan would benefit the U.S. economy 
by $9 billion a year in increased activity and create hundreds of thousands of 
new jobs. The Portland region would gain an estimated $138 million a year in 
new economic activity. Where are jobs and economic growth in terms of 
priority for you in negotiating an agreement? 

Answer. We fully recognize the important role that air services play in 
stimulating business activity and trade between countries. Accordingly, our 
goal is to maximize the opportunities for additional U.S.-Japan air services. 
As we have pointed out in answering other questions, Japan has very 
protectionist views regarding aviation and it will be our objective in any future 
talks to convince Japan that increased air services will mutually benefit the 
economies of both countries. 



QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DOMENICI 

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION ALONG THE BORDER 

Question. Secretary Pena, the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA) has opened the Nation's borders to its neighbors north and south. In 
1993, a Senate resolution passed which instructed the Department of 
Transportation to "uphold all United States truck safety standards, including 
truck sizes and weights" during the truck harmonization negotiations with 
Mexico and Canada. It has come to our attention that both Canada and 
Mexico are advocating use of larger trucks in the harmonization talks. These 
standards will have an impact on the conditions of roads and highways in New 



147 



Mexico as the state attempts to expand trade with Mexico as a result of 
NAFTA. Where does the United States stand with the NAFTA harmoniza- 
tion talks relating to truck safety standards progress? 

Answer. The Department fully intends to continue to uphold federal motor 
carrier safety requirements. The sentiment expressed in the Senate's 1993 
resolution is consistent with our approach to the standards compatibility work 
within the NAFTA's Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee (LTSS). 
The LTSS was established by the NAFTA as the tri-national mechanism for 
examining the land transportation regulatory regimes -- including vehicle 
weights and dimensions - in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The 
NAFTA does not require that standards be harmonized, it only calls for best 
efforts to achieve greater compatibility. In fact, the Agreement specifically 
states that each country retains the right to adopt, apply, and enforce more 
stringent standards than those in effect in the other countries. 

We are working within the LTSS to try to bring the three countries' 
standards closer together. Our objective is to eliminate, to the extent possible, 
inefficiencies in cross-border trade, while encouraging adoption of regulations 
that yield the highest levels of safety. While the LTSS is not a decision- 
making body, it may recommend actions to departmental executives regarding 
standards that could be made more compatible. With respect to vehicle 
weights and dimensions, there are presently no recommendations for changing 
existing U.S. requirements. If at some point, the Department were to consider 
amending existing regulations, we would follow the normal regulatory process 
for the issuance of federal regulations. Any proposals to change statutory 
requirements would be decided by Congress. 

ROSWELL RADAR STATUS 

Question. Over the past five years, we have been working with the FAA to 
establish a stand-alone terminal radar approach control facility (TRACON) at 
the Roswell Industrial Air Center Airport in Roswell, New Mexico. The last 
schedule that the FAA provided to my office indicated that although there had 
been a delay in awarding the contract, the FAA expected that construction of 
the TRACON will be completed by October, 1996, and that the radar will be 
commissioned in October, 1997. Is that the current schedule for the Roswell 
radar? 

Answer. The ASR-9 radar is scheduled to be commissioned in September 
1996. The TRACON is scheduled to be completed and commissioned in 
September 1997. 

Question. Could you provide me with an update on where this project 
stands? 

Answer. The ASR-9 radar was delivered in April 1996, installation is in 
progress, and the radar is scheduled to be commissioned in September 1996. 
The TRACON is under construction and is scheduled to be commissioned in 



148 



September 1997. Service for Rosvvell will begin initially by using the 
Albuquerque TRACON and will transition to Roswell after completion of the 
TRACON. 

Question. Do you anticipate any additional delays with this project? 
Answer. No additional delays are anticipated. 

TRANSPORTATON RESEARCH/AGING AIRCRAFT CENTER 

Question. Mr Secretary, the Administration's FY- 1997 budget includes a 
request of $196 million for the FAA's Research, Engineering and 
Development program, an increase of $10 million, or 5 percent, above the 
1996 level. In your testimony, you emphasize the Administration's concern 
for safety. 

You are aware of my ongoing interest in work to ensure the safety of our 
commercial air fleets. One of the exciting programs funded through the FAA 
is the Aging Aircraft Non-destructive Evaluation Center (AANC) in 
Albuquerque. This Center has been supported by the FAA for the past five 
years, and I am pleased that this funding arrangement was continued. 

In FY 1995 the aircraft safety program was funded at $25 million, showing 
a significant interest by Congress in this areas of the FAA research budget. 
Even with the significant budget constraints in 1996, Congress maintained this 
activity at $20 million. Although the overall research budget is increased, this 
crucial activity is being reduced by the Administration to $13.9 million for FY 
1997. This is a reduction of $6.1 million, or 30.5 percent. 

In view of the rapid aging of the nation's commercial aviation fleet, what is 
the Administration's rationale for a significant reduction in the aging aircraft 
activity? 

Answer: There has not been a significant reduction in the aging aircraft 
activity in FY 1997. In FY 1996, the Aging Aircraft Safety Program included 
a major activity. Aging Aircraft Information Systems, which was fiinded at 
$6.2 million. In the FY 1997 budget request, this initiative was expanded to 
include not only aircraft but also air operators, repair stations, schools, and 
airmen. It is now funded separately as a budget line item entitled Aviation 
Safety Risk Analysis at a $6.1 million level. Hence, the funding level for 
Aging Aircraft Structural Safety and Maintenance and Inspection R«feD 
activities in FY 1996 was actually $13.8 million as compared to the FY 1997 
request of $13.9 million. 

Question. What ongoing activities will be sustained with these resources? 
What activities will be reduced or eliminated? 

Answer. The Aging Aircraft Structural Integrity and Maintenance and 
Inspection R&D program areas was ftinded at $13.8 million in FY 1996. With 
requested funding in FY 1997 at $13.9 million, the R&D program will 
continue research in the airworthiness areas of structural safety widespread 



149 



fatigue damage, engine life predictive melhodolgies, inspection, maintenance 
and repair, corrosion, airborne data monitoring, and in the human performance 
area of aviation maintenance. 

Question. How much will the FAA devote to the Aging Aircraft Non- 
destructive Evaluation Center in the FY 1997 budget request? 

Answer. The FAA has requested $2.25 million for the Aging Aircraft Non- 
destructive Evaluation Center in the FY 1997 budget request. 

Question. Are the requested funds sufficient to support ongoing program at 
AANC, which are largely devoted to the development of technologies to 
inspect aging aircraft in commercial service? 

Answer. This funding level is considered sufficient to accomplish the 
FAA's highest priority work, including technology transfer initiated and 
funded in FY 1995 and FY 1996. 

Question. What activities envisioned in the current ftinding agreement 
would not be supported under the Administration's budget request? 

Answer. Under the Administration's budget request the Sandia National 
Laboratory provided staffing support for the AANC will be reduced by 
approximately 30 percent. 

Question. Why does DOT then project ftinding levels for FY 1998 and FY 
1999 at in excess of $17 million? Why reduce the program for one year and 
then ramp up expenditures in the subsequent two years? Is this good policy? 

Answer. Initially the RE&D program was planned to be more aggressive in 
its research. The FYs 1998 and 1999 ftinding levels reflect the last FAA 5- 
year ftjnding plan which is no longer valid. 

PROPOSED DOT RESTRUCTURING 

Question. Secretary Pena, the Administration announced with some fanfare 
in its 1996 budget a major restructuring of the Department of Transportation to 
save an estimated $6.7 billion over five years. The 1997 budget request 
abandons that restructuring initiative and continues departmental programs 
much as they have been in the past. Why has the Administration abandoned 
this major restructuring proposal? 

Answer. Our proposal last year to consolidate grant programs into a 
Unified Transportation Infi-astructure Investment Program (UTIIP) represented 
a ftirthering of the principles that form the foundation of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Those principles are: 
flexibility in the use of Federal grant funds, more accountability at the State 
and local level, and assurance that primary Federal interests in the 
transportation system are advanced. We think those principles are sound and 



150 



that vvc should move forward on those principles from ISTEA in the future. 
However, it was clear in the reaction to our proposal - from Congress, from 
State and local governments, and from transportation interest groups ~ that we 
need to permit State and local governments more time to adjust to the changes 
that ISTEA brought about before we introduce more change. So, our FY 1997 
proposal is based on current law. We do expect that many of the innovations 
represented in our UTIIP proposal will be revisited as part of the process of 
reauthorizing ISTEA. We'll be doing that ourselves in the year ahead as we 
consult with the public and form our own proposal for ISTEA reauthorization. 

Question. Congress has provided some support for the Administration's 
proposed changes at the Department. For example, Congress granted DOT the 
authority to test its State Infrastructure Bank proposal, and the 1997 budget 
includes $250 million for this purpose. What is your preliminary assessment 
of the impact that this program will have on financing transportation projects 
in the pilot states? 

Answer. Based on what we have seen to date, a number of innovations are 
expected to result from the SIB pilot program. Included in this would be: 
innovations to make toll highways more feasible; sale-leaseback financing 
structure for infrastructure; construction financing for projects involving 
multiple, phased funding sources; and loans to local government where bond 
financing is impractical or infeasible. 

TAKING TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUNDS OFF BUDGET 

Question. Last week, the House voted to take the four major transportation 
trust funds (Highway, Aviation, Inland Waterways and Harbor Maintenance) 
off budget and exempt these trust ftinds from budget enforcement spending 
limits. 

As you may know, just last week Chairman Hatfield and I, along with other 
colleagues, signed a letter to all Senators stating our strong opposition to this 
concept (copy attached). What is your opinion of the House effort to take these 
trust funds off-budget? If the Administration is opposed, what is USDOT 
doing to fight this proposal? 

Answer. We were disappointed with the House vote. The Department is 
opposed to proposals to take the transportation trust fiinds off-budget. We 
should not redefine the deficit calculation to exclude certain programs or to 
exempt programs from appropriate budget controls. That would mean either a 
larger real deficit or a larger burden for deficit reduction on other programs, 
including programs of the Department. 0MB Director Rivlin has sent a letter 
to Senator Stevens expressing the Administration's opposition to taking the 
trust funds off budget, and DOT officials have been clear in their statements in 
hearings and meetings about the Department's position. 



151 



Question. What is USDOT's position on the balance in the highway trust 
fund? Of all highway trust flind receipts collected from gas taxes since 1956, 
how much has been allocated for transportation spending? How much has the 
general fund contributed to transportation spending since 1956? 

Answer. At the end of this fiscal year, there will be an estimated cash 
balance in the highway trust fund of $21.4 billion, but that is not a surplus 
because commitments against that cash balance will total $46.9 billion. That 
is, the highway trust fund will be overcommitted by more than $25 billion. 
That means that if the programs financed by the highway trust fund were 
terminated at the end of this year, another year of revenue would have to be 
collected to cover the commitments already made. Since there is a surplus in 
the mass transit account of the trust fund (which is only there because transit 
spending has been financed heavily from general revenues, in addition to the 
trust fund), the situation with respect to the highway account is much worse: it 
will be overcommitted by over $30 billion at the end of this year. That is 
permitted under the law because trust fiind programs are generally "slow 
spending," but it is a fact that trust fund commitments exceed its ability to pay 
from cash balances. 

Outlays from the highway trust fund have far exceeded the tax revenues 
credited to the trust ftind since 1956, and all the spending has been for 
transportation purposes. General flind expenditures for transportation since 
1 956 total more than $40 billion. 

Question. If the House bill was to become law, would USDOT continue to 
assume the current general fund contributions to highway, aviation and mass 
transit? 

Answer. The portion of DOT programs that are funded from the trust and 
general fijnds is subject to Congressional authorization and is one of the issues 
Congress will confront in reauthorizing these programs. 

USER FEES FOR THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

Question. In the President's request, USDOT has requested $15 million in 
offsetting collections be allowed for funding of the newly created Surface 
Transportation Board in 1997. However, current law only allows for between 
$1 and $3 million to be collected in a fiscal year for such activities. Where 
will these user fees come from? On what transportation sector will they be 
imposed and how will they be collected?. 

Answer. The Board collects fees for services based on the authority 
granted all agencies in the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 
(lOAA). In FY 1996, the ICC and Board will collect approximately 
$1.9 million in fees associated with those functions transferred to the Board as 
a result of ICCTA. The table on the next page summarizes the major fee 
categories and the revenues anticipated in each category during the current 
fiscal year. 



152 



In April the Board issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking 
comment on a proposal to revise its fee schedule. This proposal modifies 
selected fees to reflect new cost study data, proposes new fees for services and 
activities that have not previously been included in the Board's user fee 
schedule, and removes caps from all fee items. If all of the changes proposed 
in the draft notice were ultimately adopted, the Board would collect 
approximately $3 million on an annualized basis. Comments on this proposal 
were due May 6. 

Fees under the lOAA must be based on the cost of providing a service 
to an identifiable beneficiary. The vast majority of fees collected under the 
current system are paid by railroads. Although shippers and motor carriers are 
also charged fees for services they receive from the Board, fees paid by these 
users represent a relatively small percentage of total fees collected. 

In order to recoup through offsetting collections all of the operating 
costs of the Board, however, as proposed in the President's budget, new 
legislative authority would need to be enacted to permit the Board to institute 
some form of annual charges. Board staff recently completed an options paper 
on this issue at the request of the Office of Management and Budget (0MB). 
This paper evaluates various approaches available to fijlly fiind the Board 
through fees. The paper recommends a combination approach to funding the 
Board, implementing a system of fees that includes annual assessments on 
railroads, with some possible variations for smaller railroads and fees for 
specific services, including charges to shippers. 

ADDITIONAL USER FEE REVENUE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 ' 



Transportation Mpde and 
Activity Description 

STB - Rail 

Tariff/Contract Summaries 

Major Merger Transaction 

Abandonment - Notice of Exempt 

Abandonment - Petition Exempt 

Abandonment - Application 

Purchase, Lease-Pet. - Exempt 

Documents for Recordation 

Construction-Petition Exempt 

Construction Exten. - Notice 
Exempt 



Fiscal Year'96 


Fiscal Year '96 


Annualized piling 


Annualized 


Activitv 


Revenue 


46,849 


$609,040 


1 


196,900 


86 


163,400 


34 


112,200 


9 


105,300 


24 


87,000 


3,003 


63,693 


18 


54,000 


46 


43,700 



153 



Trackage Rights - Notice Exempt 


58 


37,700 


Subtotal STB - Rail 


XXX 


$1,472,933 


Other Miscellaneous STB - Rail 


XXX 


147,158 


Total STB - Rail 


XXX 


$1,620,091 


STB - Motor 






Miscellaneous STB - Motor 


XXX 


237,782 



GRAND TOTAL STB MOTOR xxx $ 1 ,857,873 

AND RAIL 



' Annualized activity levels for Fiscal Year 1996 are based on filing activity 
that has taken place at the ICC and Board between 10/1/95 and 3/1/96. The five 
months of actual activity have been expanded to a full year on the assumption that 
activity will be constant for the remainder of the fiscal year (except for the category 
of major mergers for which we do not assume another filing in our estimates.) 



Question. If these fees cannot be collected for 1997, how will the newly 
created Board be funded for 1997? Is USDOT anticipating discretionary 
funding for the Board if fees cannot cover 1997 operating expenses? 

Answer. The President's budget proposes that $15,344 million of offsetting 
collections be available to the STB for necessary expenses. The 
Administration believes that fees can be collected for FY 1997. If the fees are 
not collected, the STB has funding requirements that should be met. 

Question. If legislation is needed to create new user fees for the Board, 
when will USDOT send this legislation to the appropriate Congressional 
committees? 

Answer. New legislation would be required to permit the Board to assess 
annual charges and/or charge fees based on the value of services so as to cover 
all of the expenses of the Board. The proposed FY 1997 President's Budget 
language for the Surface Transportation Board provides for user fees to be 
collected by the Board. 

PRESIDENT'S REDUCTIONS TO TRANSPORTATION IN 2001 AND 
2002 

Question. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the 
President's budget does not reach balance by 2002, as claimed last February. 
In order to reach balance, the President's tax cuts must be sunset at the end of 
2001 and further discretionary reductions have to be made in 2001 and 2002. 
These discretionary reductions will mean a 5 percent reduction in 2001 and a 8 



154 



percent reduction in 2002 below the President's budget for those fiscal years. 
Where will these reductions be allocated in DOT's budget? 

Answer. To estimate the deficit for 1996 through 2002, the Administration 
used the most recent CBO assumptions that were available -- from December 

1995. To ensure that the budget would reach a balance under either CBO or 
0MB assumptions, it includes a "trigger" which would lower discretionary 
spending caps and end the proposed tax cuts after 2000 if balance would not 
otherwise be achieved. There will be many revised economic estimates 
between now and the year 2000, as well as dramatic changes in the Nation's 
transportation system. We will review the allocation of resources among DOT 
programs each year as part of the normal budget process and decide each year 
how best to allocate the resources available to the Department to help achieve 
a transportation system that moves people and goods safely and efficiently. 

Question. If DOT has not yet determined where these reductions will be 
made, can you offer possible areas or programs that can be reduced by the 
President in order to reach balance in 2002? 

Answer. Our annual budget proposals are largely driven by projected 
needs and the availability of alternative financing. Any decision about 
program cuts in the year 2002 should be based on information that will 
become available in the intervening years about transportation demand and the 
success of our innovative financing initiatives. 

Question. With the expiration of the four excise taxes used to ftind the 
Airport and Airway trust fund (primarily the 10 percent excise tax on domestic 
airline travel), the Budget and Appropriations Committees have been 
concerned about the balance of the trust fund at the end of the current fiscal 
year. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has just released a report stating 
the end of the fiscal year balance for the aviation trust ftind will be 
approximately $400 million. Meanwhile the FAA has stated the trust fund 
will be depleted this coming August. What is the correct answer? What will 
the balance be in the aviation trust ftind this coming September 30? 

Answer. If the aviation taxes are not reinstated, the uncommitted cash 
balance in the trust ftind will be approximately $1.8 billion at the end of FY 

1996. This takes into account the rescission of unobligated contract authority 
in H.R. 3019 and a forthcoming adjustment by Treasury. 

Question. If USDOT supports the FAA's contention the ftmd will be 
exhausted this coming August, would your office supply information backing 
up the FAA's claim and reasons why the GAO report is incorrect? 

Answer. It appears that the reference to August relates to the expected time 
frame for reinstatement of the excise taxes, as assumed in the FY 1997 
President's Budget, rather than when the ftmd would be depleted. The GAO 
report states that if the taxes are not reinstated the trust ftind money available 
at the end of FY 1996 would total $600 million. This estimate was fairly 



155 



accurate when it was developed prior to the rescission orunobMgatcd contract 
authority and the forthcoming Treasury adjustment. 

Question. The Administration's budget projects aviation excise taxes will 
be reinstated this coming August. How did USDOT choose this date of 
enactment? 

Answer. DOT, Treasury, and 0MB collectively chose August as the 
estimated date of reenactment on the basis of the legislative calendar. 

Question. With the expiration of the four excise taxes used to fund the 
Airport and Airways trust fund (primarily the 10 percent excise tax on 
domestic airline travel), recent reports have discussed the effect of the 
expiration on airline ticket prices. What has been the effect on airline ticket 
prices? Has the traveling public seen a reduction in airline fares since the 
expiration of the aviation excise taxes? 

Answer. There is no comprehensive source of data on average ticket prices 
per se, but data on passenger mile revenues wich reflects ticket prices is 
published by the Air Transport Association (ATA) for major air carriers 
(excluding Southwest). The industry calculates average revenue per passenger 
mile (yield) by dividing passenger revenues by revenue passenger miles flown. 
The yield does not include the 10 percent ticket tax. If we add the ticket tax to 
the yield for the October through December 1995 quarter so that it reflects the 
price paid by the passenger including the ticket tax, average domestic yield is 
14.86 cents per revenue passenger mile. Average yield for the January 
through March 1996 quarter (which does not include the tax) is 13.93 cents per 
revenue passenger mile. 

Question. If airline fares have fallen due to the expiration of the taxes, how 
much have they fallen, on average? Has this figure changed over time since 
January 1, 1996? 

Answer. Average domestic fares paid in the January through March 1996 
quarter declined 6.3 percent over fares in the previous quarter. Compared to 
last year at this time, average domestic fares declined 4.9 percent. 

Question. Has the expiration of the excise taxes added to the revenues of 
the airlines? If so, how much more revenue has been collected by airlines? 

Answer. For the January through March 1995 quarter, the major airlines 
domestic passenger revenues — including excise taxes — totaled about 
$1 1 .773 billion. For the January through March 1996 quarter, revenues — 
excluding excise taxes — are estimated at $1 1.741 billion, a decline of about 
0.3 percent, much less than the decline in the passenger ticket tax. 



156 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SPECTER 
EFFECTS OF OPERATING ASSISTANCE REDUCTIONS 

Question. As co-chair of an informal Senate Transit Coalition, I am very concerned 
about the budget outlook for mass transit. The Administration's fiscal year 1997 budget 
request proposes $4.3 billion for federal transit programs, a six percent increase from 
FY96. Included is a request for $500 million in federal operating assistance for public 
transportation, which represents a $100 million increase over FY96 levels. (In FY96, 
operating aid was cut from $710 million to $400 million.) Coupled with federal mandates 
and funding pressures at state and local levels, the federal cuts have resulted in some 
combination of fare increases and transit service cuts in many Pennsylvania communities. 
What has been the operational response that both small and large transit systems have had 
to make under such a reduction in operating assistance funds? 

Answer. We have monitored how transit agencies have responded to reductions in 
federal assistance over the past year. The fiscal year for transit agencies varies and some 
took action in anticipation of federal operating assistance cuts as early as last summer, 
depending on their budget cycle needs and their perception of events in Congress. Given 
the time required to modify service or secure additional revenue - whether from fare 
increases, state and local funding or other sources — many transit agencies are still 
determining how they will respond. 

In several locations, states or local government have provided one-time funding to 
cover the FY 1996 shortfall, or budget reserves have been used. But these sources cannot 
address long-term needs. Transit agency directors have informed us that their actions, 
described below, can be attributed completely or at least in part to the reduction in federal 
operating assistance. 

As you are already know, transit operators of all sizes in Pennsylvania have been 
affected by the cuts. For small and mid-size operators, the operating assistance reduction 
caused both significant percentage and real reductions in operating revenue. For large 
systems such as those in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, although the percentage reductions 
are comparatively small, the lost revenue represents difficult to replace operating 
resources. 

In the Philadelphia region, federal operating assistance was reduced to $14.7 million in 
FY 1996, a $13.4 million reduction from FY 1995. The Southeastern Pennsylvania 
Transportation Authority (SEPTA) recently released its FY 1997 operating budget, which 
states that in order to maintain the current level of service, an increase of revenue from 
this year's projected $716 million to $749 million would be needed. However, only $671 
million is expected from current fares, anticipated subsidies and other revenue. In order 
to make up the anticipated deficit, the budget proposes $10 million in fare increases 
(approximately 6%), $35 million in service cuts (including a reduction of 650 of the 7,300 
hourly employees) and $30 million in savings by reducing the administrative and 
supervisory staff of 2,300 by 680. A number of factors have created SEPTA's budget 
dilemma, and reduced and uncertain federal assistance is an important contributor. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, the Harrisburg Capitol Area Transit System saw its 
region's federal operating assistance cut 48 percent, causing a half-million dollar deficit in 
their annual budget. The board raised bus fares 22 percent effective January 1, 1996. 
The Salem Area Mass Transit District (Cherriots) in Oregon, which carries over 3 million 
passengers annually, had its federal operating assistance reduced $166,512, or 25 percent 
from FY95 to FY96. Cherriots used capital reserve funds to cover the reduced federal 
operating assistance for 1996, but this funding source has been diminished and this will 
not be available again. A referendum to raise property taxes to provide transit capital and 



157 



operating funds is scheduled for May 21. If the referendum does not pass, transit service 
would be reduced by an estimated 10 percent, and a fare increase would have to be 
considered. 

In Canton, Ohio the Pro-Line transit agency raised fares 44 percent (from $0.70 to $1) 
and instituted a 25 percent service reduction and a 10 percent management salary 
reduction. Many bus headways were reduced from 30 minutes to hourly service as part of 
the service reduction and ridership has declined 20 percent. In March 1996, a referendum 
to increase the county sales tax to offset funding shortfalls failed to pass. Transit agency 
officials indicate that other revenue sources are few and more drastic measures, including 
closing the system, will be considered if the necessary funds are not identified. 

In August, 1995 the Casper, Wyoming Area Transportation Coalition eliminated 
weekend service to adjust its FY 1996 budget for the anticipated Federal funding cuts. 
Casper's nine bus fleet provides over 100,000 trips each year. 

In New York City, the 25 cent NYC fare increase drove nearly 4 million riders away 
from the subway in December 1995 compared to December 1994. Bus ridership fell 1 1 
percent in the December to December comparison. 

In January 1996, transit fares in Madison, Wisconsin increased from $1 to $1.25. 
Paratransit fares were also increased from $2 to $2.50, and monthly passes increased from 
$32 to $35. Service was also reduced. In Roanoke, Virginia the city council asked the 
Virginia assembly for permission to assess a two percent gasoline tax to fund the local 
transit service. Valley Metro. The action was taken to directly offset the reduction in 
federal operating assistance. 

The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority is holding a series of public hearings 
around the state this spring on proposed fare increases and service cuts that the agency 
says it needs to overcome a projected deficit. The agency has proposed an 1 8-percent 
fare increase and service reductions to counter a potential $ 5.7 million shortfall for the 
1996-97 fiscal year. 

In Great Falls, Montana the transit agency will hold hearings in April 1996 regarding a 
proposal to eliminate one of the system's eight routes, eliminate midday service in the 
summer, and beginning to charge passengers for transfers. The transit agency has been 
able to cover the FY 1996 shortfall by using reserve fiinds but this option cannot be 
repeated. 

The Maryland MTA raised Baltimore transit fares 8 percent and eliminated free 
transfers between bus zones and beUveen different transit modes (e.g., bus-rail, rail-bus). 
Twelve ( 1 8 percent) of the region's 66 bus routes were eliminated or had service reduced. 

INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING 

Question. Secretary Petia, you have proposed in the Administration's budget request a 
cut of $400 million for infrastructure spending compared to FY 96 levels, from $25.3 
billion to $24.9 billion. Does your Department have any thoughts as to how these 
reductions will eventually impact the various modes of transportation, such as highways, 
public transit, and aviation? 

Answer. Our proposal for transit is an increase over this year. With respect to the 
budget proposal for the Federal-aid highway program in FY 1997, it is approximately the 
same as this current year except for Minimum Allocation, Emergency Relief, and exempt 
Federal-aid demonstration projects. Budget authority for Minimum Allocation, a 
program exempt from the obligation limitation, is calculated each year based on 
apportionments and allocations to States and States' percentage share contributions to the 
Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Largely due to completion of the 
Interstate Construction and Transfer programs, the Minimum Allocation calculation has 



158 



yielded significantly lower levels of contract authority for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, so 
estimated obligaUons for this program arc down in 1997. 

Because of a significantly higher FY 1996 program level in Emergency Relief, another 
exempt program, to fund highway repairs necessitated by a series of natural disasters 
around the country, estimated obligations next year at the level of annual contract 
authority also represent an apparent reduction. Finally, in recognition of budget 
constraints and a desire to maximize funding for core highway programs, we propose an 
obligation limitation on demonstration projects, which will slow down ftinding for these 
congressionally earmarked projects. No demonstration project fiinds are proposed tor 
rescission, however. r. , n 

We believe our proposal of $250 million to capitalize State Infrastructure Banks will 
stimulate more non-Federal investment than would other%vise occur and will offset all or 
part of the reduction in Federal-aid highway obligations in FY 1997. 

We proposed a $100 million reduction in the airport grant program level. That was a 
difficult choice that was based on two factors: the severe budget constraints that FAA - 
along with the rest of the Federal government - faces in the years to come even as the 
demand for its services is projected to grow significantly, and the alternative sources of 
financing for airport improvements, including passenger facility charges (which are 
estimated to raise $900 million in 1997) and bond financing backed by airport revenues. 
We believe airports will generally be able to stay on track with their capital plans despite 
this reduction in Federal assistance. 

Our proposal for reauthorization of the airport grant program includes two important 
provisions relating to airport financing. First, the bill would authorize FAA to enter into 
agreements with airport sponsors to implement airport innovative financing techniques 
th^t enhance airport infrastructure investments. FHWA has had that authority and made 
significant progress with it in recent years in stimulating non-Federal investment in 
highway infrastructure. Second, the bill would direct the Secretary to establish a select 
panel on airport financing to examine the full range of options for meeting a.rport 
infrastructure needs and recommend financing approaches that will best meet identified 
needs. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS 

Question. Do you think that the $17.7 billion obligation limit on Federal-aid highway 
spending is sunicient, given the significant surpluses in the highway trust fund? In 
Pennsylvania, for example, the State has had to announce delays in construction of nearly 
80 highway projects due to a projected lack of funds. A higher obligation limit would 
help ease this crunch and allow more projects to go forwards. r.„„... to 

Answer. Considering the commitment shared by President Clinton and Congress to 
reduce the Federal deficit and balance the budget, we believe the Budget proposal for 
Federal-aid highway spending is appropriate. The President's Budget '« de^'^f ^° 
balance the budget in seven years and meet key Federal priorities. For DOT the Budget 
keeps the level of investment in infrastructure the public uses at about $2 billion above 
the FY 1993 level. 

AMTRAK 

Question. The Amtrak Board has taken a number of steps to improve the financial 
situation of our national railroad, including a number of cuts in routes a"d ^^^ri' '" , 
Pennsylvania and other States. For example, the Board proposed eliminating the local 
Philadelphia-Harrisburg "Keystone Service," which was saved in part by a commitment 



159 



by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to assume more of the costs. What 
is the status of the cuts in routes and service proposed by the Amtrak Board? What steps 
has the Administration taken to work with the States to preserve routes and segments 
wherever possible? 

Answer. Beginning in FY 1995, Amtrak's management initiated the development of a 
strategic business plan to reshape the nation's passenger rail system and create a "new 
Amtrak." Changes approved by the Amtrak Board focused on restructuring the 
company, including the creation of separate strategic business units to focus customer 
service, reduction of overhead, adjustments to routes and service, and the renewal of fleet 
and facilities. Final results of Amtrak's FY 1995 financial performance show that the 
company came very close to achieving its strategic business plan, and Amtrak has not 
proposed new route and service modifications for FY 1996. The Administration has no 
direct funding to assist efforts by states to preserve routes; however, where appropriate, 
the Department has and will continue to work with States attempting to use Federal funds 
provided through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act for Amtrak 
scr\'icc. 

Question. As someone who rides Amtrak at least two times a week, I know that a 
safe, convenient and effective national passenger rail system is not a luxury, but a basic 
component of our modem economy and society. Amtrak also offers a viable alternative 
to congested highway and air travel. What impact will the Administration's budget 
request have on Amtrak's ability to provide intercity rail service in the fijture? How has 
the Administration responded to the cost of replacing and modernizing Amtrak's physical 
assets (maintenance facilities, train equipment, and support assets), which represent a key 
challenge to the viability of the railroad? 

Answer. The Administration's FY 1997 budget request will enable Amtrak to 
continue transforming itself into a customer-driven company that provides quality 
intercity service. This request recognizes that the transformation will not come easily and 
will give the company time to acquire modem and efTicient equipment and facilities, to 
develop needed marketing strategies, and to develop private and public partnerships. 

The President's Budget requests a total of $576.5 million for Amtrak capital including 
the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program (NECIP) and high-speed rail trainset 
facilities, two-thirds more than the $345 million appropriated for capital and NECIP in 
FY 1996. This capital request will do much to address Amtrak's need to replace and 
modemize Amtrak's physical assets, including upgrading old maintenance facilities and 
replacing old locomotives and passenger cars. 

BICYCLE SAFETY RESEARCH 

Question. Recently, I was in Pittsburgh to meet with community and health care 
leaders who have been diligently pursuing a state-of-the-art technology proposal geared 
to bicycle safety research. The initial focus of this activity is on our children who must 
rely on bicycles for their principal mode of transportation but often lack the skills 
required to operate their bicycles safely. I am advised that existing research programs in 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration focus solely on the infrastructure 
used by bicycles, but that there is little or no funding for bicycle safety research. Given 
that there are 580.000 bicycle injuries annually in the United States, of which 900-1000 
involve death, shouldn't your agency support research focused on improving bicycle 
safety. 



160 



Answer. The Department estimates that approximately 800 bicyclists are killed each 
year and that over 65,000 bicyclists are injured in crashes with motor vehicles. These 
non-occupant deaths comprise approximately 2 percent of all traffic fatalities. 

In the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) share responsibilities 
in the areas of bicycle safety. The FHWA is involved in infrastructure issues and in 
developing engineering solutions for bicycle safety problems. The NHTSA is responsible 
for education, enforcement and legislative approaches for reducing bicycle crashes. 

More than twenty years ago, NHTSA-sponsored research identified the types of 
crashes bicyclists get into with motor vehicles. Crash causation was examined from the 
perspective of the kinds of behavioral errors committed by motorists and bicyclists as 
well as the environmental context in which these crashes occurred. Subsequently, 
NHTSA conducted research on developing prototype countermeasures involving training, 
model regulations and public service messages. Some of these countermeasures were 
directed at crashes involving mainly children, but their development and test were 
delayed indefinitely as NHTSA directed its resources to combat drunk driving and to 
increase the use of occupant protection devices. 

More recently, there has been renewed agency interest in bicycle safety. Research 
funds have been expended, in conjunction with FHWA, on developing a training course 
that deals with pedestrian and bicycle safety and infrastructure issues. The course is 
aimed at traffic safety professionals (such as traffic engineers, planners, police, and traffic 
safety specialists), and is designed to make participants more aware of bicycle/motor 
vehicle crash problems and potential solutions. 

Also, a major NHTSA bicyclist safety research effort is underway. This project, 
costing approximately $300,000, will be evaluating the potential effectiveness of a wide 
range of existing bicycle safety countermeasure approaches (including education, 
legislative, enforcement and engineering approaches) and, if needed, will fijrther develop 
and test one or more of these measures. 

Additionally, it should be noted that NHTSA is engaged currently in a number of 
outreach efforts dealing with promoting the use of bicycle safety helmets and proper 
bicycle riding procedures for children. 

The agency's highway safety outreach program provides additional emphasis to this 
issue, including a Secretarial initiative and a major collaborative program with the 
FHWA. Programs such as "Walk Alert" and "Walking Through the Years" will receive 
additional marketing emphasis via cooperative partnerships with the private sector, and 
Campaign Safe & Sober will include materials on pedestrian and bicyclist issues. The 
Patterns for Life program will implement outreach and training to prevent child 
pedestrian and bicyclist deaths and injuries, and the Moving Kids Safely Conference, to 
be held in June of 1996, will focus on a variety of approaches to prevent deaths and 
injuries to children, including young bicyclists. In addition, the agency has worked with 
the National Little League in the "Keep'em Safe" program and the National Football 
League in the "Ride Like a Pro" program to promote bicycle safety practices and safety 
helmet usage. 

NHTSA has a number of bicycle safety initiatives and research in the agency's 
FY 1997 budget request to Congress. These funding and program activities are discussed 
in detail within that submission. The research activities include new programs to assess 
and improve police attitudes regarding bicyclist/pedestrian enforcement activity; evaluate 
new bicycle motor vehicle crash countermeasures; and analyze survey data assessing 
public attitudes and behavior regarding pedestrian^icycle safety problems. Program 
activities include multi-agency bicycle helmet usage promotion, a project on nighttime 
bicycle crash protection with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and 



161 



helmet usage promotional program with the National Football League and Major League 
Baseball. 

The Patterns for Life program provides for community-based education in bicycle 
safety. This will be accomplished by building sustainable community child safety 
coalitions by connecting community outreach centers with local partners, including law 
enforcement, fire and rescue personnel and other local health and safety advocates. 

NHTSA has also developed a wide variety of written and electronic media that we 
distribute to citizens, governments, and organizations throughout the United States: 

The OfT-Road Cyclist's Guide 

Along for the Ride video, brochure and poster 

10 Smart Routes to Bicycle Safety 

The National Bicycling and Walking Study 

Little League Brochure and Baseball Cards 

Ride Like A Pro brochure 

Injury Control Recommendations: Bicycle Helmets 

A Case Control Study of the Effectiveness of Bicycle Safety Helmets 

Be A Well-Dressed Cyclist - Wear A Helmet 

Bicycle Helmet Use By Children 

A Consumer Guide to Bicycle Helmets 

Buckle Up Your Baby - Bicycle Helmets for Children 

Who Needs A Helmet? 

Procedures & Resource Guide for Bicycle Helmet Promotions 

Be Head Smart. It's Time to Start brochure and video 

Bicycle Helmet Laws and Educational Campaigns: An Evaluation of Strategies to 

Increase Helmet Use By Children 

Bicycle Helmet Use Laws State Legislative Fact Sheet 

Incidence, Severity, and Outcome of brain Injuries Involving Bicycle 

Bicycle Traffic/Fatalities Facts 

Traffic Safety Facts (Pedalcyclists) (updated annually) 

Developing A Children's Bicycle Helmet Safety Program: A Guide for Local 

Communities 

The Basics of Bicycling 

Learn the Safe Route Program Portfolio 

The Child As A Passenger On An Adult's Bicycle 

Prevent Bicycle Accidents: A Message for Parents. 



QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MIKULSKI 
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE 

Question. The National Highway System legislation directed us to develop 
a regional agreement by October of this year to set up a Board for the 
Woodrow Wilson Bridge project. We have been working very hard to put 
together this agreement. Can you give us assurances that a significant federal 
contribution will be forthcoming for this important regional facility? 

Answer. The National Highway System (NHS) Designation Act requires 
submission to Congress of a proposed agreement that includes a 100% federal 
share of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project to include: all planning, 



162 



engineering, environmental studies, design work, as well as a contribution 
equal to the cost of replacing the existing bridge with an equivalent structure. 
The current estimate is that it could cost up to $400 million to replace the 
bridge with a comparable modem bridge designed to current engineering 
standards. Given the uncertainty about the options being considered for 
replacement of the bridge, no assurances can be given regarding any 
significant federal contributions beyond the amounts already provided by 
ISTEA and the NHS Designation Act. It is envisioned that the report to 
Congress required by October 1, 1996, will appropriately address the future 
federal contribution toward the project. 

Question. We are looking for an appropriation in FY 1997 to fulfill the 
ISTEA authorization of the project. What other federal funds will you be 
planning to make available to keep this project on track? 

Answer. Section 1 103 of ISTEA authorizes approximately $5.4 million for 
the project for FY 1997. Administrative funds authorized under Section 410 
of the NHS Designation Act will also be available. There is an additional 
$15.0 million authorized for use on the bridge in ISTEA Section 1069 which 
has not been appropriated yet. 

BALTIMORE WASHINGTON PARKWAY 

Question. ISTEA authorized $90.3 million for the upgrading of the 
Baltimore Washington Parkway. It is estimated that $23 million is needed to 
complete this federally-owned project. Why weren't the fijnds included in the 
budget? 

Answer. ISTEA section 1 104 provided $16.3 million in contract authority 
for the Parkway, reduced by $0.4 rescission in FY 1996. In addition, section 
1069 provided authorizations for appropriations of $74 million, of which $35.8 
million has been appropriated. To date, $144.2 million has been provided for 
the Parkway. The estimated additional funds needed to complete the 
remaining portion of the Parkway are $21.2 million. 

Funds are available to proceed with engineering work on the Parkway. 
Considering the commitment shared by President Clinton and Congress to 
reduce the Federal deficit and balance the budge, additional funds are not 
included in the Department's FY 1997 budget request. The President's Budget 
is designed to balance the budget in seven years and meet key Federal 
priorities. 

NEW STARTS 

Question. The FTA discretionary New Starts program has worked very 
well in the past as a partnership with States helping to make major 
transportation investments. The Contingent Commitment Authority has been a 
very helpful mechanism by assisting States with major projects between 



163 



Federal authorizations. As we look to the next reauthorization cycle, please 
share with us your views regarding these Federal/State partnership 
arrangements and commitment authority. 

Answer. The FTA discretionary New Starts program is perhaps one of the 
best examples of Federal/State partnership. This program provides Federal 
assistance for major transit investments that have been selected through the 
local planning process. In this way, FTA assists State and local authorities in 
implementing those improvements that they have determined will best serve 
their needs. 

A major reason for the success of this partnership has been the intermodal 
planning regulations issued jointly by FTA and FHWA in October, 1993. 
These regulations brought about an unprecedented degree of coordination 
between State and local transportation planning activities, and with Federal 
transportation prograrhs. State and local decisionmakers are now free to set 
their own transportation priorities and evaluate a variety of modes to meet 
their needs, rather than choosing improvement projects according to Federal 
funding categories. Once a decision is reached on the type of improvement 
needed, funding can be provided through the appropriate Federal program. 

FTA has used contingent commitment authority as a "bridge" between 
authorizations. New Starts are major transit investments that take many years 
to implement - in many cases, more years than remain in the current 
authorization. Without contingent commitments, it would be impossible to 
fund new projects near the end of an authorization period, because 1) all 
funding needed to complete the project would have to be provided before the 
authorization expires, or 2)continued funding would be required in future 
years. Contingent commitments permit FTA to plan for projects that by their 
very nature will extend into future authorizations. 

Contingent commitment authority also permits better management of the 
New Starts caseload. By permitting funding schedules that more closely 
match the needs of a project, FTA avoids the prospect of allowing large 
unobligated balances to accrue. This allows scarce Federal funds to be spread 
among a larger number of projects that are capable of quickly obligating 
funds, rather than remaining unspent in the accounts of a few. 

METRORAIL 

Question. Federal funds were previously authorized to begin 
environmental studies and preliminary engineering for the 2.9 mile extension 
of the Washington Metrorail system at Addison Road to Largo, Maryland. 
Despite lack of previous appropriations, the state has proceeded with the initial 
aspects of study using state funding. FTA has issued a letter of no prejudice 
for this portion of the project and we will continue seeking the federal 
appropriations. Can you give us assurances that federal funds will be 
forthcoming to complete the major investment studies and environmental 
impact statement work? 



164 



Answer. Although $5 million was authorized in ISTEA for the Largo 
extension, no funds have been appropriated for this project. The Fiscal Year 
1997 Federal Transit Administration new starts budget request covers only 
those projects which currently have full funding grant agreements, or projects 
which are expected to be ready for FFGA's in 1996. This is consistent with 
our policy of using new start funds for projects which are construction ready, 
and looking to Federal planning or formula funds to cover the funding of 
major investment studies and environmental work. For this reason, the FTA 
issued a letter of no prejudice to allow the planning and environmental work to 
proceed on the Largo extension, with the expectation that costs could be 
covered by other Federal funds. 



QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GORTON 
IMPACT OF SHIFT TO NEW FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS 

Question. In reading the President's budget for Federal Transit 
Administration Discretionary Grants, I understand that the President is 
proposing to move away from the 40 percent for fixed guideway 
modernization, 40 percent for new fixed guideway, 20 percent for bus and bus 
related to a split of 40 percent/45 percent/15 percent respectively, with the bus 
program taking the reduction to fund additional new starts. For those 
jurisdictions that rely heavily, or even exclusively, on buses, as do most of the 
jurisdictions in my state, how would the President suggest that I defend this 
move away from buses to more new fixed guideway systems? 

Answer. ISTEA intended that routine bus needs be met by the Formula 
Grants programs. Our FY 1997 budget request includes $1.5 billion in capital 
formula resources, the same as appropriated in FY 1996, to be used for all 
transit purposes (i.e., planning, bus and railcar purchases, facility repair and 
construction). The Administration has consistently supported increased transit 
formula resources to provide maximum flexibility for transit authorities, thus 
allowing them to prioritize and target funds to their most important needs. 
Historically, 37 percent of funds obligated under Urban Formula Grants flind 
fixed guideway modernization and 57 percent are obligated for bus and bus- 
related projects. The percentage devoted to bus and bus-related has increased 
as transit operations, especially in the large metropolitan areas, implement the 
ADA paratransit service requirements and shift to alternative fiiels. 

The $274 million in discretionary bus funding requested will be sufficient 
to cover extraordinary bus needs such as deployment of an Advanced 
Technology Transit Bus, large facilities, and major bus purchases. 

In the past, the discretionary Bus activity has tended to contain a relatively 
large carryover due to premature earmarking. Many ready-to-go projects were 
delayed because money was tied-up in premature earmarks that were not ready 
to obligate funds. We believe those flinds can be more productively utilized in 



165 



New Starts and Fixed Guidevvay Modernization. The requested FY 1997 
budget provides sufficient funding for bus and bus related projects and also 
utilizes discretionary funding in an efficient manner by minimizing 
unobligated carryover at the end of the fiscal year. 

NEW STARTS 

Question. The President's budget calls for a 20 percent increase in New 
Starts funding, a nine percent increase in rail modernization, and a 17 percent 
cut in funding for bus and bus related projects funded out of the discretionary 
capital program. While I approve of increasing transit investments, why the 
increase in New Starts at the apparent expense of bus and bus related projects, 
which has served as a partial-means of allowing transit districts to comply with 
the strict standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the mandates 
under the Clean Air Act? 

Answer. We are proposing that $800 million be made available each fiscal 
year for New Starts. We believe that $800 million per year will provide an 
adequate level to meet the needs of the current 1 1 new start projects with flill 
funding grant agreements (FFGAs) and one project with a Letter of Intent 
which is anticipated to receive a FFGA during fiscal year 1996. In addition, 
the $800 million funding level permits five additional new start projects which 
are projected to enter into FFGAs within calendar year 1996 to receive a start- 
up level of funding in FY 1997. By adopting a consistent level of funding, we 
add a reliable and predictable resource upon which project managers can plan. 
This will allow grantees to meet construction schedules which saves both 
Federal and local dollars by assuring a consistent level of funding to avoid 
costly delays in construction and escalating inflation costs. 

This emphasis on New Starts, however, does not come at the expense of 
systems that rely predominantly or exclusively on bus service. Bus services 
remain the mainstay of transit systems in nearly all urbanized areas. Ninety- 
five percent of the urbanized areas in which transit is provided only have bus 
service. Our FY 1997 budget request includes $1.5 billion in capital formula 
resources, 57 percent of this money has, historically, been obligated for bus 
and bus-related projects. The percentage devoted to bus and bus-related has 
increased in recent years as transit operations, especially in the large 
metropolitan areas, implement the ADA paratransit service requirements and 
shift to alternative fuels. 

ISTEA intended that routine bus needs be met by the Formula Grants 
programs. Discretionary bus funding combined with Formula Grants funding 
will be sufficient to cover the bus and bus related needs of the nations transit 
operators. 



166 



INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT 

Question. The Administration talks a lot about investment in infrastructure, 
but it appears that they are proposing lower amounts for infrastructure 
investment, which seems to be going in the opposite direction from what 
Administration representatives are saying. For example, the general operating 
expenses line-item in the Federal Highway Administration budget was $510 
million in FY96 and proposed at $653 million in FY97 -- a 28% increase. 
Can you explain why this category of administrative costs seems to be 
growing so quickly? 

Answer. The FHWA budget request for the programs funded from General 
Operating Expenses would increase by about $160 million in FY 1997 over 
FY 1996, principally for research and technology activities, including 
Intelligent Transportation Systems. The FHWA's operational administrative 
costs, however, such as salaries, benefits, travel, and miscellaneous supplies, 
have remained at about the same level over the past three years, in spite of pay 
act increases and inflation. The research and technology program funding, 
which includes highway-related research and development in support of the 
States' highway programs, is principally driven by DOT and Congressional 
commitments to move the extensive investment we have made in the area of 
intelligent transportation systems into the field - to actually have States and 
localities use some of the techniques and equipment we have developed to 
address their problems with congestion, air pollution, and mobility. The 
model deployment of ITS technology is important because it allows us to test 
and refine in a few locations what could be very costly to implement then 
change under a ftill implementation ~ we could have major savings in the long 
run from this effort. The model deployment will provide input to the national 
ITS architecture through demonstrating the benefits of integrating individual 
ITS technologies. 

REGIONAL RE-ORGANIZATION 

Question. I know there has been some discussion regarding the 
reorganization of certain offices in the Federal Highway Administration. The 
citizens of Washington State and officials at the Washington State Department 
of Transportation both believe the division office is very effective and has led 
to a strong working relationship by allowing a quick resolution of issues. 
What is the Department's plan with respect to consolidation of regional and 
division offices for the Federal Highway Administration? 

Answer. While the final decisions on the details of the Department's field 
restructuring initiative involving the surface transportation administrations, 
namely, FTA, NHTSA, FRA, and FHWA, have not yet been made, key 
features of this effort include (1) co-located regional and metropolitan offices; 
(2) State-based multimodal offices providing customers with a single point of 
contact for services; (3) shared program delivery, technical, and administrative 



167 



resources at all levels of the field organization; and (4) intemiodal, customer 
friendly program delivery processes. The Department is currently developing 
details for implementing these initiatives. At this time, we are focusing upon 
the consolidation of offices to provide one-stop shopping rather than large 
scale elimination of offices. 

The FHWA agrees that its State-level division offices with their highly 
decentralized authority and close proximity to State transportation and 
regulatory agencies and the motor carrier industry provide a valuable customer 
service function for our customers and partners. These offices provide 
technical assistance to State and local governments in areas such as congestion 
management, metropolitan planning, and civil rights. Motor carrier safety and 
compliance reviews are conducted from the division offices and certain 
satellite offices in some States as well. It is expected that under the currently 
proposed restructuring initiative the existing FHWA State level offices will be 
retained and their responsibilities broadened to reflect a truly intermodal 
approach to program and service delivery. 

FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION POLICY 

Question. As you know, our interstate gross vehicle weight limit for trucks 
is 80,000 lbs. and both Mexico and Canada currently allow trucks to operate at 
a much heavier level. Obviously these differences must be resolved during the 
NAFTA harmonization process later these year. Can you tell me what the 
United States' negotiating position is on weight limits? 

Answer. The NAFTA does not require that standards be harmonized, it 
only calls for best efforts to achieve greater compatibility. In fact, the 
Agreement specifically states that each country retains the right to adopt, 
apply, and enforce more stringent standards than those in effect in the other 
countries. The Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee (LTSS) was 
established by the NAFTA as the tri-national mechanism for examining the 
land transportation regulatory regimes - including vehicle weights and 
dimensions - in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

We are working within the LTSS to try to bring the three countries' 
standards closer together. Our objective is to eliminate, to the extent possible, 
inefficiencies in cross-border trade, while encouraging adoption of regulations 
that yield the highest levels of safety. While the LTSS is not a decision- 
making body, it may recommend actions to departmental executives regarding 
standards that could be made more compatible. With respect to vehicle 
weights and dimensions, there are presently no recommendations for changing 
existing U.S. requirements. If at some point, the Department were to consider 
amending existing regulations, we would follow the normal regulatory process 
for the issuance of federal regulations. Any proposals to change statutory 
requirements would be decided by Congress. 



168 



SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS 



Senator Lautenberg. The hearing of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation is now recessed. The next hearing is Thursday, May 
2, at 10 o'clock in Dirksen 192 to discuss the budget request of the 
Federal Aviation Administration with Administrator Hinson. 

Thank you all very much. I appreciate your presence. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., Thursday, April 25, the subcommittee 
was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 2.] 



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RE- 
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
FISCAL YEAR 1997 



THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1996 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 

Washington, DC. 
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Sen- 
ate Office Building, Hon. Mark O. Hatfield (chairman) presiding. 
Present: Senators Hatfield, Bond, Gorton, Lautenberg, and Reid. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Federal Aviation Administration 
statement of david r. hinson, administrator 
accompanied by: 

RUTH LEVERENZ, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

MONTE BELGER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, AIR TRAFFIC SERV- 
ICES 

GEORGE DONOHUE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, RESEARCH AND 
ACQUISITIONS 

TONY BRODERICK, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, REGULATION 
AND CERTIFICATION 

JIM WASHINGTON, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, AIR- 
PORTS 

IRISH FLYNN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, CIVIL AVIATION SECU- 
RITY 

EDWIN VERBURG, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATION 

FRANK WEAVER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, COMMERCIAL 
SPACE TRANSPORTATION 

OPENING REMARKS 

Senator Hatfield. Good morning. The subcommittee will now 
come to order. Today, we will be hearing from Mr. David Hinson, 
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, who will 
explain and defend the administration's fiscal year 1997 budget re- 
quest for the FAA. A number of the questions I have for Mr. 
Hinson are not budget specific, but they do address the financial 
situation of the agency. 

The reforms that are necessary for the FAA were once described 
as being like a three-legged stool: they need to occur in personnel, 
procurement, and finance. In the fiscal year 1996 budget appropria- 
tions bill, you remember we took a very large step, with the sup- 
port of the Commerce Committee, to begin down the road of per- 

(169) 



170 

sonnel and procurement reform. What still remains to be done, in 
my opinion, is the third leg of that stool, which is financial reform. 
In this vein, many of my questions this morning will center on the 
status of the airport and airway trust fund, and the recent debate 
on whether trust funds should be on- or off-budget. 

I will also focus on the administration's request for additional 
user fees. Whether someone favors one particular user fee over an- 
other is often determined by what sector of the aviation industry 
one represents. 

I believe it is important that FAA accurately determine the costs 
of providing the various services they perform so that, if and when 
user fees are initiated, they be properly assessed to the parties who 
benefit from the services provided. I support putting FAA on a 
sound financial footing, and I feel that targeted user fees are in 
keeping with the current environment. The FAA is not being di- 
rected to do less, it is being asked to perform efficiently. 

The current thinking is that the beneficiaries of the Government 
services pay to the extent possible for the services, and not be sub- 
sidized by the general taxpayer. If FAA is performing more effi- 
ciently, then I believe there will be less opposition to the user fee 
concept. 

There are many other areas of questioning we could discuss, in- 
cluding FAA's progress installing new equipment to make the con- 
troller's job easier and the skies safer. We could also spend consid- 
erable time exploring the issue of outages, or the global positioning 
satellite system. Rest assured, though, Mr. Hinson: If we do not 
cover these areas in the hearing this morning, I will be submitting 
questions for the record, to which I ask you to respond in a timely 
fashion. 

I want to say that this is my last chance to enjoy the privilege 
of holding a hearing for the FAA. I want to pay tribute to the tre- 
mendous leadership you have provided. I think you must have one 
of the longest tenures in modem history. I admire your tenacity 
and your stick-to-it-iveness. You have certainly focused on reform, 
efficiency, and safety — not neglecting any one part of your overall 
mission. I speak to Mr. Hinson not only as a fellow public servant 
in his present position, but I am privileged to have known Mr. 
Hinson over the years and consider him a very dear personal 
friend. I just think you certainly have set a standard that your suc- 
cessors will have to measure up to. I think you have not only had 
a long tenure, but you have had a historically significant leadership 
period in the life of the FAA. 

Mr. Hinson, Senator Lautenberg, our ranking member of the 
committee is here. [Laughter.] 

Senator Lautenberg. I have been sitting here trying to be recog- 
nized. 

Senator Hatfield. Timing. In politics everything is timing, and 
that is why you are successful, sir. I am happy to turn to my col- 
league, my partner in this committee. Senator Lautenberg, who 
served as distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, and ask if 
he wishes to make any opening statements at this time. I went 
ahead to complete mine, and then I was stalling until that right 
moment. 



171 

Senator Lautenberg. Nothing like a grand entrance they say. 
One thing about working with Senator Hatfield, things move that 
are supposed to move. I thought we were on Senate time here, 
which is usually 10 minutes plus or minus or more. 

Senator Hatfield. My old Navy training. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I was in the Army. 

Senator Hatfield. That is why I said Navy. [Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, as usual it is a 
pleasure to sit with you and review our tasks for transportation 
and appropriations, generally. Unfortunately, as we progress 
through these hearings, we also come closer to the time when you 
will be having a good time out there either fishing or fuming or 
educating, and we will be here laboring without your skilled hand. 

We are going to miss that terribly, even though everyone knows 
that down deep I cannot help but do some wishful thinking about 
us just simply changing seats, you here and me there, and continu- 
ing on our friendship and our work together. We will certainly miss 
Senator Hatfield's skilled hand and commitment to all things good 
for our country. 

I want to welcome Administrator Hinson this morning. The sub- 
committee finds itself at a critical crossroads as to how we ap- 
proach the funding of FAA. As far as I'm concerned, we cannot act 
fast enough to take the measures necessary to ensure predictable 
and adequate flow of resources to guarantee aviation safety in the 
vibrant aviation industry. 

Since the ticket tax expired this past December, the airport and 
airway trust fund has been losing $0.5 billion each month. Mean- 
while we sit this morning to review a budget request that assumes 
more than $6 billion in funding from the trust fund. 

At the current rate of revenue shortage, by the end of this year 
there will be less than one-tenth of the funding necessary to fi- 
nance the trust fund portion of this request. Clearly, action is need- 
ed, and it is needed soon. 

I find it worse in that certain aviation interests, especially some 
of our air carriers, seem to think that in the absence of an ade- 
quately financed trust fund, that this subcommittee will somehow 
be in a position to come up with an additional $6 billion in general 
funds to finance FAA's critical missions. 

Anyone who has been following the budget debates over the last 
several months knows there is not an extra $6 billion lying around 
here anywhere. The budget before us seeks to begin the path to- 
ward FAA finance reform by requesting $150 million in new avia- 
tion user fees. 

This morning, I hope that we are going to be able to learn some 
of the specifics underlying this request for new fees. I do not object 
to new aviation user fees if they directly cover the cost of services 
provided. 

However, we must be cautious that as we address the entire 
issue of finance reform, new fees do not result in a situation of dou- 
ble taxation. One thing is certain, we cannot wait much longer to 
act. We cannot debate these issues forever while the FAA 
scrounges for adequate resources to guarantee safety. 



172 

The incidence of air traffic control outages at several air traffic 
control facilities over the last several months has highlighted the 
inadequacies of our current system, inadequacies that have raised 
the specters of our pilots flj^ng blind. Inadequacies that have un- 
dermined public confidence in the entire air traffic control system. 

The solution to systems outages is not solely about the money, 
but neither can these solutions be achieved without it, without 
money. The Administrator is here to present a budget that seeks 
to ensure the safety of this system and requests more funds with 
which to do it. 

At a time when pressure is great for Federal agencies to 
downsize, the Administrator is appropriately requesting new re- 
sources to hire more than 250 additional inspectors, 250 additional 
air traffic controllers, and more than 130 additional field mainte- 
nance technicians. 

If this subcommittee intends to provide the resources necessary 
for ensuring the safety of our current system, we, too, must face 
our responsibility to get sufficient resources with which to do it. 

As we go about this task, we may not have the luxury of wide- 
reaching consensus within the aviation community. I doubt that we 
are going to have the luxury of a consensus between our major air 
carriers before we act. We may not even have the luxury of a Sen- 
ate-passed FAA reform bill. I look forward to working with the 
chairman and the Administrator to take whatever actions are nec- 
essary to ensure adequate funding for the safest aviation system 
possible. 

I want to just add a footnote, because I say it every time I have 
to, when I look at the statistics — ^the number of people carried, the 
distances carried, the frequency that we have movements airport to 
airport — it is an amazing system. It is incredibly well-done. The 
people who are employed in the towers and the air traffic control 
system are devoted, hardworking public servants. We ought not to 
suggest to the public the system is not safe. 

Can we make it safer? I think so. I think that we have fallen 
short, not pointing any fingers, on the technological improvements 
that are necessary and, frankly, the staffing requirements that are 
necessary. However, this is one incredibly good system. I think the 
public deserves no less than the best we can do. 

I hope that we will be able to find a way to reach that objective, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg, for your ex- 
cellent statement. 

Senator Bond, do you have an opening statement that you wish 
to make? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOND 

Senator Bond. Yes; Mr. Chairman, I will have a couple of ques- 
tions on a specific problem, and then a broader area of questions 
that I am asking of all the Federal agencies. 

Welcome, Mr. Hinson. I had the pleasure not too long ago of tour- 
ing Wilcox Electric in Kansas City, MO. At the time 

Senator Hatfield. Excuse me. Senator Bond, may I interrupt for 
just a moment to see if there is an opening. This is a question? 

Senator Bond. No. 



173 

Senator Hatfield. Oh. Excuse me. 

Senator Bond. This is an opening statement. 

Senator Hatfield. Fine. Thank you. 

Senator BOND. I will have the question. 

Senator Hatfield. Sure. 

Senator Bond. I toured Wilcox Electric and I saw the tremen- 
dous progress that they were making on the Wide Area Augmenta- 
tion System. At the time, I was advised that it was achieving all 
of the substantive goals set out for it. 

I know last August you joined Secretary Peiia in announcing, 
with great fanfare, that this project would make the United States 
a world leader in satellite technology, would create thousands of 
new American jobs in a $30 billion industry in a decade. 

Less than 1 month ago, the Vice President announced the United 
States would become tne world leader in satellite technology and 
would help create thousands of new American jobs. 

For many years, Wilcox has been heavily involved in the re- 
search and development of satellite-based landing systems, has 
conducted research in conjunction with the FAA, NASA, Boeing, 
international civil aviation authorities, and others. 

Wilcox was the first company to demonstrate successfully that 
the Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Signal Code, if 
you follow that, could be used to achieve category 1 accuracy per- 
formance. It was the first company to demonstrate successfully the 
use of GPS guidance to achieve automatic landings in a commer- 
cial-transport-type aircraft in tests at Langley. 

Wilcox has always been at the forefront. Yet, I was shocked to 
hear last Friday that the FAA had decided to terminate the $475 
million WAAS contract. Less than 1 year ago, the FAA said it had 
picked the best team. Less than 1 year ago, no other bidder chose 
to protest the award. 

I am very much concerned that with the termination there is 
grave danger that this program will not be delivered on schedule 
within the cost parameters to which had been committed. 

Mr. Chairman, I will have a number of questions following up on 
that decision. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you. 

Senator Reid, do you have an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR REID 

Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask per- 
mission of the chair that I be able to submit my questions in writ- 
ing. I have another matter that I must attend. 

I will say that I have, Mr. Chairman, read the statement of Mr. 
Hinson. I appreciate the direction of the statement, the direction in 
the statement. I especially agree with that contained in the second 
paragraph of your statement, where you draw to the attention of 
anyone within the sound of your voice the 30 years of exemplary 
service in the U.S. Senate by the chairman of the subcommittee 
and the chairman of the full committee, Mark Hatfield. 

I have not had the opportunity to say this publicly, but I will at 
the time, that I could not agree with you more. If there were ever 
anyone that I hold up as someone we should all pattern ourselves 
after as a Senator, it would be Mark Hatfield. I am thankful that 



174 

the FAA recognizes what a fine person is leading this subcommit- 
tee. 

Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated to you, there are a number 
of questions I will submit. I do say that I think the agency jumped 
right on this incident involving a 7-year-old girl who was trying to 
set the record. I think that the direction and approach made by the 
agency is a good one. I look forward to the final results of your 
study, and the recommendations that you ultimately give. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you. Senator Reid. We will submit 
your questions for the record. The Administrator has been re- 
quested to answer them in a timely fashion. Thank you for your 
kind remarks. 

At this time I would yield to Senator Bond to start the question- 
ing to our witness — oh, no, excuse me. Maybe we had better hear 
from the witness. [Laughter.] 

We are having a hearing for you, Mr. Hinson. We have other 
places we could make our speeches, 

Mr. Hinson. I was reconsidering the second paragraph, Mr. 
Chairman. [Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. HINSON 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. With your indulgence, sir, I would like 
to read a good portion of my statement. I think it is important. We 
welcome the opportunity to appear before you today on the FAA's 
budget request of $8.25 billion for fiscal year 1997. Our proposal 
reflects the constrained budget environment in which we find our- 
selves as we proceed toward a balanced Federal budget. 

Importantly, though, this budget request fulfills the administra- 
tion's commitment to meeting the safety and operational needs of 
our air transportation system. Specifically, as Senator Lautenberg 
pointed out, we are increasing staffing in several critical safety 
areas: 258 additional aviation certification inspectors, 134 addi- 
tional field maintenance technicians, and a net increase of 250 air 
traffic controllers to meet the increasing demands placed on the 
FAA by a dynamic growing industry. 

PERSONNEL AND PROCUREMENT REFORM 

Mr. Chairman, before I continue, I would like to take this oppor- 
tunity to express my admiration and respect for the outstanding 
contributions you have made to the United States during 30 years 
of exemplary service. The people of Oregon, as well as all Ameri- 
cans of every persuasion, have been blessed by the foresight, direc- 
tion, and leadership you have brought to this Senate. 

I would like to interject, Mr. Chairman, that during my residency 
in Oregon for some 14 years, I agreed with every single vote you 
cast. 

Senator Hatfield. My wife does not even do that. [Laughter.] 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Hinson. Nothing demonstrates this more than the leader- 
ship provided by you and this subcommittee in enacting the signifi- 
cant personnel and acquisition reform provisions of the 1996 appro- 
priation act that promised to be instrumental in helping us do our 
job better. 



175 

We recognize that the authority that the Congress has given us 
to shape FAA-specific personnel and acquisition systems is vir- 
tually unprecedented. Throughout the process of developing the 
new systems we have been mindful of this unique opportunity. 

The new personnel system gives us needed flexibility meeting the 
dynamic staffing needs associated with a complex, technical work 
force that must keep pace with a constantly changing industry. The 
new system has incorporated 100 percent of the personnel reform 
recommendations proposed by the Vice President in the "National 
Performance Review" back in 1993. 

Using this new authority, we have already acted to make expe- 
dited appointments in seven key executive-level positions and are 
able to provide pay incentives for controllers and maintenance per- 
sonnel at several critical air traffic facilities. We are able to fund 
these incentives because of savings we are able to incur in overtime 
and pay differentials. 

The goal of our new acquisitions system is for us to bring new 
systems online in one-half the time we have previously experi- 
enced, assuming the funds are available. We expect to reach this 
goal of reducing acquisition time by 50 percent within the next 3 
years. 

Being able to achieve this time savings is an important benefit. 
It will make available the sought-after safety and efficiency bene- 
fits of new technology that much sooner. Equally important, in an 
era of rapidly changing technology, it means that our equipment 
when fielded will be more nearly reflective of the state-of-the-art 
technology. We are already incorporating all aspects of the new ac- 
quisition system immediately in several current procurements that 
will lead the way to reform. 

We are hopeful that our new personnel and acquisitions systems 
will serve as a model for the rest of Government, showing how 
thousands of pages of statutory and regulatory dictates can be re- 
duced to short, simple, commonsense documents, while continuing 
to preserve important principles such as appropriate competition in 
our contracting activities and merit selections in our personnel pro- 
grams. One example of what we are already able to do is the elimi- 
nation of over 155,000 position descriptions that are being replaced 
by only 2,000 such documents. 

Thanks to your courage and leadership, Mr. Chairman, you have 
given us at the FAA an awesome responsibility. We plan to take 
full advantage of this opportunity and lead the way for other Fed- 
eral agencies to serve as a model for responsive, effective govern- 
ment. 

While the personnel and acquisitions reform you have made 
available to us will, over time, help us find greater efficiencies, it 
is not a panacea for addressing FAA's long-term resource needs. 

Under virtually any budget scenario, the overall effort to achieve 
a balanced budget can be expected to severely limit the Congress' 
ability to fund FAA programs, because of the extremely tight do- 
mestic discretionary caps. This is why we have been actively work- 
ing to achieve financial reform for FAA. 



176 

FINANCING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

We would urge that the subcommittee approve our request for 
$150 million in new user fees, and that, for the longer term, the 
members of the subcommittee assist us in our efforts to obtain 
meaningful financial reform for the FAA. 

We are pleased that you have extended your commitment to Sen- 
ator McCain to support his efforts to make financial reform in the 
FAA a reality. We are confident that with your help we can achieve 
meaningful financial reform in the near future. 

Given the importance of the FAA's work to the safety of the trav- 
eling public, as well as to supporting an industry that contributes 
significantly to our Nation's economic well-being, it is critical that 
the FAA's resource requirements be accommodated in the future. 
In our view, financial reform is the only assured way of doing that. 

WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM 

The FAA, with the support of this subcommittee, has accom- 
plished much this past year in which we can all take pride. We 
have continued to make important strides toward realizing the full 
promise of GPS, and the recent Presidential decision on GPS for 
civil application validates the work we have underway on the Wide 
Area Augmentation System. 

As you are probably aware, the FAA has taken strong, decisive 
action to redirect the WAAS program. With your help, Mr. Chair- 
man, we are doing things differently now. We no longer have to tol- 
erate poor performance and we were able to take decisive action to 
terminate the existing contractor with the expectation that we will 
get a new contractor in place as soon as possible. 

This action does not mean a change in our commitment to the 
Wide Area Augmentation System, but instead demonstrates our 
commitment to put this technology in place in the most cost-effec- 
tive way possible. We have shown decisive action in other ways. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

Following several small aircraft accidents in 1994 which began 
an erosion of public confidence in commuter air carriers, we set out 
to achieve one level of safety for all air carrier passengers, whether 
they flew on part 121 or part 135 airlines. 

That extraordinary regulatory effort was completed by the FAA 
in record time with final rules promulgated last December. We also 
upgraded airline pilot training at the same time. We have also 
made continued progress toward implementing free flight, an inno- 
vative plan designed to improve the safety and efficiency of the Na- 
tion's airspace system by allowing pilots, under certain cir- 
cumstances, to choose their own routes and fly the most efficient 
and economical flight paths. The FAA and the aviation community 
will work together to phase in free flight over the next decade. 

We also initiated a new approach to aviation safety — setting an 
ultimate goal of zero accidents — and brought together over 1,000 
aviation executives to work with us to identify steps that we and 
the industry in partnership could take to help us achieve our zero 
accident objective. 



177 

Consensus was reached that improved data collection and shar- 
ing of this data are key to that effort, and we in the aviation com- 
munity are aggressively working to establish the appropriate 
framework needed to obtain and disseminate safety information. 

Mr. Chairman, that is a very, very important project, and one 
that I can talk about at length in the appropriate forum. We have 
also initiated Challenge 2000, a comprehensive review of the way 
the FAA regulates and certifies the industry. 

This review is essential to determine what the FAA will need to 
do to overcome the increasing challenges of regulating the aviation 
industry and certifying rapidly changing technologies as we enter 
the 21st century. 

This past year, much media attention was focused on a series of 
service interruptions we experienced in air traffic facilities. To ad- 
dress these, we took steps to hire additional personnel and to up- 
grade the equipment at affected facilities as an interim measure 
pending the completion of the redirected and successful advanced 
automation system effort that is underway. 

These service center interruptions underscore both the signifi- 
cant public focus that is placed on maintaining a safe and efficient 
air system and the need to press forward with system moderniza- 
tion. But the intense problems we are experiencing help mask some 
of the very good news of what was happening. 

Specifically, throughout 1995, on any average workday the FAA 
commissioned five to six new systems, moving us further along on 
our long-standing effort to modernize the air traffic control system. 
The display channel complex replacement [DCCR] is well ahead of 
schedule. We will begin actually installing this equipment in the 
Chicago Center in June, 10 months ahead of our original forecast. 
Furthermore, our long-term computer modernization efforts for our 
air traffic control centers, display system replacement [DSR], is on- 
time and on-budget. 

During the past year, we have experienced several challenges to 
civil aviation security including potential terrorists plots and un- 
covered by Philippine authorities and a threat by the so-called 
Unabomber to blow up an airliner operating out of Los Angeles. We 
have put additional measures in place to prevent or deter potential 
criminal or terrorist acts against the U.S. transportation system. 

We have, similarly, made progress in virtually all FAA program 
areas. We have done this while continuing to streamline and 
downsize. Since 1993, we have reduced the FAA's work force by 10 
percent or nearly 5,100 people. 

We have also continued to move to put the FAA on a more busi- 
nesslike footing, through organizational refinements and improved 
strategic planning and goal setting, to help us achieve greater effi- 
ciencies and become more effective in performing our vital func- 
tions on behalf of the traveling public. 

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

I now want to take this opportunity to address a concern I hear 
often about the accountability and management within the agency. 
The Secretary and I share a determination to face up to the tough 
problems and take decisive action. 



178 

In many of the areas I have discussed, we have faced up to the 
longstanding problems and put in place real solutions. The Sec- 
retary and I have also selected several outstanding individuals 
with superior credentials and impeccable ethical standards to man- 
age our seven lines of business. They are with me here today. 

These dedicated professionals work with me daily to ensure that 
we are providing needed safety and services at the lowest possible 
cost to the taxpayer. I hold each of these individuals accountable 
for the proper management of all activities and resources within 
their respective line of business. 

You can be assured that reports or allegations that FAA manage- 
ment is weak and nonresponsive or that individuals are not held 
accountable is simply wrong. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank you and the 
members of the subcommittee for the support you have provided to 
the FAA and to assure you of our willingness to work closely with 
you in this very demanding budgetary climate. 

On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I want to reemphasize our 
gratitude for your outstanding contributions over the past 30 years. 
We will certainly miss you. 

I also want to acknowledge at the close of my statement the close 
contributions of your colleague. Senator Lautenberg, who we have 
worked with as well, who has been a real asset to the FAA in his 
dedication to helping us achieve our mission. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Hinson. We have 
your complete statement, and it will be made part of the record. 
[The statement follows:] 

Prepared Statement of David R. Hinson 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I welcome the opportunity to 
appear before you today on the FAA's budget request of $8.25 biUion for fiscal year 
1997. Our proposal reflects the constrained budget environment in which we find 
ourselves as we proceed towards a balanced Federal budget. Importantly, though, 
this budget request fulfills the Administration's commitment to meeting the safety 
and operational needs of our air transportation system. Specifically, we are increas- 
ing staffing in several critical safety areas: 258 additional aviation safety and certifi- 
cation inspectors, 134 additional field maintenance technicians, and a net increase 
of 250 air traffic controllers to meet the increasing demands placed on the FAA by 
a dynamic, growing industry. 

Mr. Chairman, before I continue with the rest of my prepared statement, I'd like 
to take this opportunity to express my admiration and respect for the outstanding 
contributions you have made to this nation during your 30 years of exemplary serv- 
ice in the United States Senate. The people of Oregon as well as all Americans of 
every persuasion have been blessed by the foresight, direction and leadership you 
have brought to the Senate. 

Nothing demonstrates this more than the leadership provided by you and this 
Subcommittee in enacting the significant personnel and acquisitions reform provi- 
sions in the fiscal year 1996 Appropriations Act that promise to be instrumental in 
helping us do our job better. We recognize that the authority the Congress has given 
us to shape FAA-specific personnel and acquisitions systems is virtually unprece- 
dented, and throughout the process of developing the new systems we have been 
mindfiil of this unique opportunity. 

The new personnel system gives us needed flexibility in meeting the dynamic 
staffing needs associated with a complex technical work force that must keep pace 
with a constantly changing industry. The new system has incorporated 100 percent 
of the personnel reform recommendations proposed by the Vice President in the Na- 



179 

tional Performance Review back in 1993. Using this new authority, we have already 
acted to make expedited appointments in several kev executive level positions and 
are able to provide special pay incentives for controller and maintenance personnel 
at several critical FAA air traffic facilities. We are able to fund these incentives be- 
cause of savings we are able to incur in overtime and pay differentials. 

The goal for our new acquisitions system is for us to bring new systems on line 
in half the time we have previously experienced assuming that funds are available. 
We expect to reach this goal of reducing acquisition time by 50 percent within the 
next three years. Being able to achieve this time savings is an important benefit. 
It will make available the sought-after safety and efficiency benefits of new tech- 
nology that much sooner. Equally important, in an era of rapidly changing tech- 
nology, it means that our equipment when fielded will more nearly reflect state-of- 
the-art technology. We are already incorporating all aspects of the new acquisition 
system immediately in several current procurements that will lead the way to re- 
form. 

We are hopeful that our new personnel and acquisitions systems will serve as a 
model for the rest of Government, showing how thousands of pages of statutory and 
regulatory dictates can be reduced to short, simple commonsense documents, while 
continuing to preserve important principles such as appropriate competition in our 
contracting activities and merit selections in our personnel programs. One example 
of what we are already able to do is the elimination of over 155,000 position descrip- 
tions that are being replaced by onlv 2,000 such documents. 

Thanks to your courage and leadership, Mr. Chairman, you have given us at the 
FAA an awesome responsibility. We plan to take full advantage of this opportunity 
and lead the way for other Federal agencies and serve as a model for responsive, 
effective government. 

While the personnel and acquisitions reform you have made available to us will, 
over time, help us find greater efficiencies, it is not a panacea for addressing FAA's 
long-term resource needs. Under virtually any budget scenario, the overall effort to 
achieve a balanced budget can be expected to severely limit the Congress' ability to 
fund FAA programs, because of the extremely tight domestic discretionary caps. 
This is why we have been actively working to achieve financial reform for the FAA. 
We would urge that the Subcommittee approve our request for $150 million in new 
user fees, and that, for the longer-term, the Members of the Subcommittee assist 
us in our efforts to obtain meamngful financial reform for the FAA. We are pleased 
that you have extended your commitment to Senator McCain to support his efforts 
to make financial reform in FAA a reality. I am confident that with your help we 
can achieve meaningful financial reform in the near future. Given the importance 
of the FAA's work to the safety of the traveling public, as well as to supporting an 
industry that contributes significantly to our Nation's economic well-being, it is criti- 
cal that the FAA's resource requirements be accommodated into the future. In our 
view, financial reform is the only assured way of doing that. 

The FAA, with the support of this Subcommittee, has accomplished much this 
past year in which we can all take pride. We have continued to make important 
strides towards realizing the fiill promise of GPS, and the recent Presidential deci- 
sion on GPS for civil application validates the work we have underway on the Wide 
Area Augmentation System, or WAAS. As you are probably aware, the FAA has 
taken strong, decisive action to redirect the WAAS program. With your help Mr. 
Chairman, we are doing things differently now. We no longer have to tolerate poor 
contractor performance and were able to take decisive action to terminate our cur- 
rent contractor, with the expectation that we will get a new contractor in place as 
soon as possible. 

This action does not mean a change in our commitment to WAAS technology, but 
instead demonstrates our commitment to put this technology in place in the most 
cost effective way possible. 

We have shown decisive action in other ways. Following several small aircraft; ac- 
cidents in 1994, which began an erosion of public confidence in commuter air car- 
riers, we set out to achieve "one level of safety" for air carrier passengers, whether 
they flew on Part 121 or Part 135 airlines. That extraordinary regulatory effort was 
completed by the FAA in record time, with final rules promulgated last December. 
We also upgraded airline pilot training requirements at that time. 

We have also made continued progress toward implementing Free Flight, an inno- 
vative plan designed to improve the safety and efficiency of the Nation's airspace 
system by allowing pilots, under certain circumstances, to choose their own routes 
and file the most efficient and economical flight plans. The FAA and the aviation 
community will work together to phase in Free Flight over the next 10 years. 

We initiated a new approach to aviation safety — setting an ultimate goal of zero 
accidents — and brought together over 1,000 aviation executives to work with us to 



180 

identify steps that we and industry in partnership could take to help us achieve our 
zero accident objective. Consensus was reached that improved data collection and 
sharing are key to that effort, and we and the aviation community are aggressively 
working to establish the appropriate framework needed to obtain and disseminate 
safety information. 

We have also initiated CHALLENGE 2000 — a comi)rehensive review of the FAA's 
regulation and certification capabilities. This review is essential to determine what 
the FAA will need to do to overcome the increasing challenges of regulating the 
aviation industry and certifying rapidly changing technologies as America enters the 
21st century. 

This past year, much media attention was focused on a series of service interrup- 
tions we experienced at air traffic facilities. To address these service interruptions, 
we took steps to hire additional maintenance personnel and to upgrade the equip- 
ment at affected facilities as an interim measure pending the completion of the redi- 
rected and successful advanced automation system effort that is underway. These 
service interruptions underscored both the significant public focus that is placed on 
maintaining a safe and efficient air transportation system and the need to press for- 
ward with system modernization. But the intense focus on problems we were experi- 
encing helped mask some of the very good news that was happening. Specifically, 
throughout 1995, on any average workday FAA commissioned 5 to 6 new systems 
throughout the U.S., moving us further along in our long-standing efforts to mod- 
ernize the air traffic control system. The Display Channel Complex Replacement 
(DCCR) is well ahead of schedule. We will begin installing this equipment at the 
Chicago Center in Aurora this June, 10 months ahead of schedule. Furthermore, our 
long-term computer modernization efforts for our air traffic control centers, Display 
System Replacement (DSR), is on-time and on-budget. 

During tne past year we have experienced several challenges to civil aviation se- 
curity including potential terrorist plots uncovered by Philippine authorities and a 
threat by the so-called "Unabomber to blow up an airliner coming out of Los Ange- 
les. We have put additional measures in place to prevent or deter potential criminal 
or terrorist acts against the U.S. transportation system. 

We have similarly made progress in virtually all FAA program areas. And we 
have done this while continuing to streamline and downsize. Since 1993, we have 
reduced FAA's work force by ten percent or nearly 5,100 people. We have also con- 
tinued to move to put the FAA on a more business-like footing, through organiza- 
tional refinements and improved strategic planning and goal setting, to help us 
achieve greater efficiencies and be more effective in performing our vital functions 
on behalf of the traveling public. Those efforts will continue. 

I would like to take this opportunity to address a concern I often hear concerning 
accountability and management within the agency. The Secretary and I continue to 
share a determination to face up to tough problems and take decisive action. In 
many of the areas I discussed today we have faced up to long-standing problems 
and put in place real solutions. The Secretary and I have also selected seven out- 
stanoing inaividuals with superior credentials and impeccable ethical standards to 
manage our seven lines of business. They are with me here today. These dedicated 
professionals work with me daily to ensure that we are providing needed safety and 
services at the lowest possible cost to the American taxpayer. I hold each of these 
individuals accountable for the proper management of all activities and resources 
within their line of business. You can be assured that reports or allegations that 
FAA management is weak or nonresponsive, or that individuals are not held ac- 
countable for their actions are simply wrong. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank you and the Members of the 
Subcommittee for the support you have provided for the FAA, and to assure you of 
our willingness to work closely with you in this very demanding budgetary climate. 
On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I want to re-emphasize our gratitude for all the 
outstanding contributions you have made the past 30 years. We will all miss you. 

That completes my prepared statement. We would be pleased to respond to any 
questions you may have at this time. 

INTRODUCTIONS 

Senator Hatfield. Mr. Hinson, would you for the record intro- 
duce your associates who have accompanied you here today that we 
might take note and thank them as well. 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir; I will ask the seven heads of business to 
stand and introduce themselves and tell the committee what their 
responsibilities are. 



181 

Mr. Washington. James Washington, and I am the Acting Asso- 
ciate Administrator for Airports. 

Mr. Broderick. Tony Broderick, Associate Administrator for 
Regulation and Certification. 

Mr. DONOHUE. George Donohue, Associate Administrator for Re- 
search and Acquisitions. 

Mr. Belger. I am Monte Belger, the Associate Administrator for 
Air Traffic Services. 

Mr. Verburg. Ed Verburg, Associate Administrator for Adminis- 
tration. 

Mr. Flynn. Irish Flynn, Associate Administrator for Civil Avia- 
tion Security. 

Mr. Weaver. Good morning. Frank Weaver, Associate Adminis- 
trator for Commercial Space Transportation. 

Senator HATFIELD. Your chief fiscal officer? 

Mr. HiNSON. I beg your pardon, sir? 

Senator Hatfield. Your chief fiscal officer, financial officer? 

Mr. HiNSON. Ruth Leverenz is here. She is being very polite, but 
I will ask Ruth to stand. We always save the money for last, Mr. 
Chairman. [Laughter.] 

Ms. Leverenz. I am Ruth Leverenz, Chief Financial Officer. 

Senator HATFIELD. Thank you. We want to thank you as well as 
the committee for the contributions each of you make to the mar- 
velous record of the FAA. 

Our plan is now to yield for questions. I will yield first to my 
ranking member Senator Lautenberg. Without the benefit of this 
high-technology timer, we are suggesting 10 minutes at the first 
round, and we will be here for as many rounds as necessary to 
complete our questions. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Lautenberg. Round one, Mr. Chairman? This is on the 
honor system, since the clock is not working here. That is a rather 
dangerous precedent. 

Senator Hatfield. We will send you a note. 

Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Hinson. It was 
a good statement, and the mission that you want to accomplish is 
one, again, that has pretty much full support here. I know the 
chairman has been diligent about trying to move the process along, 
get the reforms done. He made an important change in procure- 
ment and personnel activities in the last year, and that is a step 
forward. 

federal aviation administration staffing 

In your statement, you make a comment about the reduction of 
personnel to the tune of 5,100 people since 1993. In your state- 
ment, you ask for 600 more people. Are you happy with the reduc- 
tion of 5,100 people, or was that something that you were forced 
and the Department was forced to do? Would that have been the 
objective if you had been in charge to operate as you saw fit? 

Mr. Hinson. Well, I think the answer is both. Clearly, there was 
a Presidential directive to reduce the size of our work force by 12 
percent by the end of fiscal year 1999, and we are almost there 
today. 



182 

Although, as a manager, it would have been my objective to 
make the FAA as efficient as possible. The majority of the 5,100 
people that have departed the agency are middle and senior man- 
agers in the relatively nonsafety work force. 

I say relatively because everybody is in the safety work force at 
the FAA. Some are closer to the daily activities like a controller, 
for example, versus someone in our, say, budget department. Clear- 
ly, we need to make the FAA more efficient, and this is an effort 
to do that without compromising the direct daily safety work forces. 

With respect, for example, to airways facilities technicians and 
air traffic controllers, we have tried to have an appropriate size 
consistent with the productivity improvements that are necessary. 

However, we now believe that because we see an increasing num- 
ber of potential retirements in both of those work forces, it is time 
to begin to reconstruct a pipeline of new people, so that we main- 
tain the appropriate level of employment. That is part of the reason 
for the increases. 

Senator Lautenberg. I was made aware of the requirement to 
build a reserve of trained people to be able to move into the key 
positions in a meeting that I had with some of the control person- 
nel in the towers in the TRACON, et cetera. 

It, frankly, Mr. Administrator, is a bit of a worry expressed by 
these people — conscientious, hardworking people — who want to 
know that the pipeline is filled. They are anxious to do their job. 
They also made me aware of the fact that there are very few dol- 
lars available for overtime contingency that might be required. I 
assume that that is an awareness that you and your team have. 

What do we do about that when people are required to put in the 
extra time, work the extra day, because of the fact that there just 
are not enough folks there to back up the system fully? 

Mr, HiNSON. Well, we do have funds available for overtime in ap- 
propriate places. One of the great advantages of the reforms that 
were given to the FAA, by this committee and other committees in 
the Senate and the House, with respect to personnel, is our ability 
to work with our employees and their organizations representing 
them with respect to work rules. 

We have already done this with air traffic controllers in airways 
facilities. They agree with us that we need to have a more efficient 
way of doing our work and of getting rid of what I would call our 
lack of commonsense rules which impair our ability to manage our 
time efficiently so that we can keep overtime to a minimum, and 
we are doing that. We do have funds available. We will probably 
never have as much money as we would like, but at the moment 
it is adequate. 

FINANCING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Senator Lautenberg. We will discuss that in the next round of 
questions in a little more detail. I want to talk about the finance 
changes that you recommend and that I believe are necessary to 
make. You propose the user fees to cover $150 million of your costs 
in fiscal year 1997. What can you tell us about the specific fee 
structure? What are the items that you would like to include in a 
user fee or propose to use in a user fee formula? 



183 

Mr. HiNSON. The $150 million that we propose in user fees will 
be initially directed at those segments of aviation which are enjoy- 
ing the privileges and benefits of the services we provide without 
any return. 

For example, international overflights. We provide air traffic con- 
trol services to a number of non-U. S. carriers transiting our air- 
space for which they receive no charge, and are provided broad do- 
mestic and oceanic air traffic control essentially free, while our car- 
riers, when they are transiting other airspace, must pay. We be- 
lieve that it is appropriate that some level of fee be attached to this 
service, for example. 

Senator Lautenberg. How significant is that? 

Mr. HiNSON. Well, that could approximate, conservatively, $30 
million; and, optimistically, $60 million. It depends upon the level 
of charges and how far we reach on an annual basis, but that is 
a fair range. 

Senator Lautenberg. The $150 million comes from? 

Mr. HiNSON. Well, there are others. For example, in the United 
States every tall building that impacts, or every building project 
that impacts airspace is surveyed and determined to be safe, un- 
safe, or impactful to the national airspace system. The most cur- 
rent, of course, being the ball park at Arlington and the concerns 
we had with^the proximity to the final approaches at National. 

We provide a lot of service on an annualized basis to the con- 
struction community free of charge. We believe it is reasonable for 
the taxpayers to recover that, and that would be somewhere be- 
tween $5 and $7 million optimistically, for example. That is an- 
other area where we provide services for which there is no recov- 
ery. 

Senator Lautenberg. Does that include inspection fee service, 
inspection fees? 

Mr. HiNSON. No; inspection fees, depending on which context you 
are referring to. We have developed a whole list of potential user 
fees, which we were asked to do and have done, and they range 
from those that I talked about all the way through to providing 
charges for air traffic control if we do not fund it through the tax 
mechanism. 

We will soon be delivering, within the next 2 weeks, the specifics 
of the $150 million user fees. We are in final coordination with the 
Department of Transportation and the White House. 

DETERMINING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S COSTS 

Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Administrator, if you were able, if we 
could move the legislative authority promptly, how quickly do you 
think that you could realistically determine your costs, your fully 
allocated costs, and put a defendable fee structure in service? You 
saw how easy it has been to get additional fees. What would be 
your guess as to what the possibilities are in terms of time? 

Mr. HiNSON. Well, Dr. Verburg runs our Administration, and he 
just brought to the FAA an expert in cost accounting from Treasury 
who has a long history of establishing cost accounting systems and 
cost allocation methods. We are heavily engaged in that. We can 
have an early look within 6 to 9 months, and a very sophisticated. 



184 

detailed, software-driven program probably within 1 year to iy2 
years, in terms of being very accurate. 

Senator Lautenberg. I am watching the clock out of courtesy to 
the chairman. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you. Senator Bond. 

WILCOX ELECTRIC CONTRACT 

Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Administrator, referring to the Wilcox Electric contract, what 
options did you offer to or discuss with Wilcox to avoid the termi- 
nation? 

Mr. HiNSON. We worked very closely with Wilcox from the incep- 
tion of the contract and followed our established procedures. We 
had many visits to their facility. I worked closely with them 
through our integrated product team and our contracting office on 
a daily basis actually. The contacts would be 

Senator Bond. You worked with them on a daily basis? 

Mr. HiNSON. Almost on a daily basis, yes, sir. 

Senator Bond. Did the FAA have any people domiciled on site 
with the contractor to resolve issues and problems on a day-in and 
day-out basis? 

Mr. HiNSON. Well, let me ask Dr. Donohue, who this falls under, 
to help me out with this, but I think so. 

Dr. DoNOHUE. Senator, we spent by our records, roughly, 900 
person-days on sight with Wilcox trying to work with them in put- 
ting in an adequate information management system, a schedule 
and cost baselining system in place. They were not what we called 
PCS'ed to Kansas City, MO; they did this on temporary duty. 

Senator Bond. They made visits there, is what you are telling 
me? 

Dr. Donohue. They made extensive visits, correct, but we had 
people onsite almost all the time. 

Senator Bond. Over what period of time? 

Dr. Donohue. From the inception of the contract, which I think 
was August 3, up until April, through April. 

MARCH 18 CURE NOTICE TO WILCOX 

Senator Bond. Why was the FAA's March 18 cure notice made 
public without Wilcox's response? That obviously had some impact 
on the morale of employees and the reputation of the contractor. 

Dr. Donohue. You want me to? 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes. 

Dr. Donohue. The cure notice is, in fact, a public notice, and so 
we only made it available because the people had a right to have 
access to that. It is a public document. We were not trying to em- 
barrass Wilcox in any way, but we felt it was important to just 
have the facts stated. 

Senator Bond. In no case do you ever give a contractor the op- 
portunity to include with the release of that statement any state- 
ment that they may make or wish to make in conjunction with 
your questions? 

In other words, if an audit is performed, it is customary for the 
auditee to have a response issued with the audit. It is not your 



185 

practice ever to give the opportunity for the contracting party to 
have a response in a cure notice? 

Dr. DONOHUE. Well, in this case actually we did encourage 
Wilcox to provide a press release at that time. They were reluctant 
to do so. We felt it was important that they put on the street the 
fact that they were responding to this notice and what their inten- 
tions were. 

Senator Bond. They first saw that notice on March 18; is that 
correct? 

Dr. DoNOHUE. Yes; we tried to give them plenty of opportunity 
to understand that we were not happy. We started from mid-Sep- 
tember, when we started giving them notification that their man- 
agement reports were not adequate for fiscal and schedule control. 
We continued that on many visits and with many detailed discus- 
sions with them. 

I myself on January 22 went out with Loni Czekalski, who is my 
product line direct report, to meet with their management and 
Hughes' and TRWs senior management to explain to them the se- 
riousness of the issue, and that we were trying to give them ade- 
quate opportunity to address our concerns prior to our deciding to 
ever go to a cure notice. That is a very severe thing. We did not 
want to ever get to that point. 

Senator Bond. This is the cure notice [indicating] of March 18, 
addressed to Mr. James C. Cotton, and signed by Susan D. Eicher. 
This was given to Wilcox on March 18. This is the cure response 
which Wilcox provided you on April 2 in which they offered to work 
in any way possible to deal with the problems identified in the cure 
notice. You thereupon within 2 weeks canceled the contract; is that 
correct? 

Dr. DONOHUE. Sir, we worked with them, both in the preparation 
of their response to our cure notice. We analyzed very diligently 
their response and we took as long as the law would allow us to 
make a determination on whether or not their response was ade- 
quate to our concerns. They in many areas did, in fact, make im- 
provements, especially in the areas of technical concerns that we 
had. 

However, the area where we were continually unsatisfied with 
their performance, which was in some management issues, they did 
not provide us adequate assurances that they were taking the very 
strong and decisive actions that had to be taken. 

We used the data that we had collected through our management 
information system over the preceding 7 months, running it 
through our own management models and our scheduling cost mod- 
els, which are fairly detailed and backed by a substantial amount 
of data, and we projected a very large cost growth in this contract 
on the order of $100 million if we continued using the systems that 
they were proposing to continue with. 

We just could not stand that level of cost growth. We reluctantly 
had to come to the conclusion — actually, the contracting officer is 
the person who had to make the final determination. 

WILCOX CONTRACT OVERRUN 

Senator Bond. I am told that Wilcox disagrees very strongly with 
your assessment the program was heading for a $100 million over- 



186 

run and a 10-month delay. I am told also that Wilcox has stated, 
and apparently had advised you, that extra time was taken, which 
was permitted under the contract, to complete certain preliminary 
stages, and that they were accomplishing all the technical param- 
eters or objectives set for the contract during that time. What they 
had done was technically proficient, as I understand it. You object 
to their management system and their schedule? 

Dr. DONOHUE. They were extensively behind schedule. Thev 
solved some of the technical problems — ^well behind schedule. All 
the technical problems have not yet been totally ironed out. 

It is the process and schedule and cost, which is something that 
in the past the FAA has allowed to go on well into the contract be- 
cause, quite frankly, people are very optimistic oftentimes of being 
able to catch up. 

We have instituted a significant number of new management 
tools within the FAA where we do not just take contractors prom- 
ises. We had a lot of promises from IBM on the advanced automa- 
tion system. We found that we needed to make our own determina- 
tions on the veracity of those estimates based upon hard data. 

Senator Bond. I believe the Wilcox people would say that the 
IBM lessons are inappropriate for Wilcox. Mr. Administrator, I 
would ask that you provide my office with documentation on the 
concerns you have about the overrun and particularly on the cost 
estimate. How much do you expect this termination of the contract 
to cost, and how much is the restart expected to cost? 

[The information follows:] 

Cost Overrun Documentation 

The two charts below are examples of the FAA WAAS Team's concerns regarding 
the Wilcox contract cost overruns: 

Chart 1: Comparative Latest Revised Estimates (LRE's). This chart displays the 
FAA's estimates for the completion of the WAAS contract. The values depicted on 
this chart were generated using raw inputs from the contractor's cost and schedule 

Serformance data reported to the FAA each month since contract award. The raw 
ata is not manipulated. These values are based on the efficiency of the contractor's 
past performance. (Note: Values are calculated within Performance Analyzer, a Win- 
dows-based software package used by the FAA WAAS Team as a tool to assess con- 
tractor cost and schedule performance. This tool has been used by the Department 
of Defense over the past twenty years as its standard for similar analysis.) A brief 
explanation for the values displayed on this chart follows: 

1. Budget at complete represents the tottd value of the contract ($243 million). 

2. Wilcox LRE ($277 million) represents the contractor's estimate of the cost to 
complete the contract as of the last reporting period (performance through March). 
This value was developed by the contractor using data formulated by the Wilcox 
management team. Typicallv, this LRE is updated each month and is submitted to 
the FAA through the normal cost and schedule reporting process. 

3. The FAA LRE, which is $313 million, represents the FAA's estimate of the cost 
to complete the contract as of the last reporting period (performance through 
March). Using the contractor's cost and schedule data, this value is calculated based 
on an equal weighting of the efficiency of the contractor's past cost and schedule 
performance. 

4. Performance factors 1-6 are cost estimates to complete this contract based on 
six different calculations again using the same contractor's cost and schedule past 
performance. Each calculation considers different aspects of the contractor's data; 
for example. Performance Factor 1 considers the efficiency of cost and schedule oer- 
formance since the inception of the contract; while Performance Factor 2 consiaers 
the efficiency of cost and schedule performance during the current reporting period. 
For the period of performance through March 1996, the cost estimates to coniplete 
the contract range from $326 million to $363 million. This represents a significant 
cost overrun (from the budget at complete) after only eight months of contractor per- 
formance. 



187 

Chart 2: Cost X-Y Graph— WAAS Cumulative Variances. This chart displays the 
cumulative dollars associated with cost and schedule variances since the inception 
of the contract. These variances are generated using the contractor's data reported 
to the FAA on a monthly basis. A brief explanation of the chart follows: 

1. The schedule variance (SV), which is indicated as square data markers, rep- 
resents the difference between the value of the work actually accomplished versus 
the value of the work planned to be accomplished. A negative value indicates more 
work was planned than was accomplished. Specific points of interest for this chart 
are: 

(a) The upward trends which occurred in November and February were due to 
work being moved from the originally scheduled period to the future in order to get 
back on schedule. 

(b) Following these upward trends, the downward trend continued in the following 
months because despite rescheduling the work, the performance efficiency was still 
not adequate to maintain the new schedule. 

2. The cost variance (CV) indicated with diamond data markers represents the dif- 
ference between the value of the work accomplished versus the actual cost of the 
work. Simply explained, for every dollar and twentv cents spent, you are only receiv- 
ing one dollar's worth of actual work accomplished. The downward slope of the line 
indicates a cost overrun is occurring at an ever increasing rate and there is no indi- 
cation that this trend will be reversed. 

The FAA had expressed concerns about cost overruns since contract award and 
had articulated these concerns on a monthly basis to the Contractor. The Wilcox 
Contractor team was provided access into the FAA's management information sys- 
tem, including Performance Analyzer, to provide insight regarding how the FAA re- 
views, analyzes, and reports the contractor's performance, and to provide Wilcox 
management an effiective management tool. 

Termination Costs: The Contracting Officer has scheduled a termination con- 
ference to be held on May 31, 1996, to ensure a definitive plan is in place to effect 
the final contract settlement. Results from this conference will provide an estimate 
of the actual termination costs. 

Restart Costs: There were no costs associated with the restart of the WAAS con- 
tract. 



188 




189 





r 












\\\\\ 
\\\\\ 
















: : : : : 

i M 1 1 
















i ! 1 i i 

: : i i : 


> 














E 

3 
U 


: : : : : 

i : i 1 i 














1 


M i M 

: : : : : 




f 






/ 


;> 


1 

> 
0) 


11 




^ 


^^--.^ 


/ 


/ 




E 

3 
U 






c 

-3 


/ 




7 




\ 


1 1 

5 S 




o 


J, 


f 








ii 




y 


' i 


V 








s B 


r 


o 
O 


^ 


> 








is 


o c 

o 
o 


o 
o 


-2000 - 
-3000 - 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 
in 


o 
o 
o 






M 










i i 

o o 



190 



NEW WAAS CONTRACT 



Mr. HiNSON. Well, we have obligations to Wilcox because we ter- 
minated for the convenience of the Government. We are working 
with Wilcox right now to determine the approximate range of those 
costs. They will be somewhere between $20 million, $25 million, 
$35 million, in that neighborhood. 

Senator Bond. How much to restart? 

Mr. HiNSON. Nothing to restart, per se. 

Senator Bond. Mr. Administrator, I am going to submit several 
questions for the record, I believe we all know who the new con- 
tractor is that you are looking at. I would appreciate a commitment 
from you that you will respond to this committee, I hope, within 
10 days to these questions. I ask that you not make that new con- 
tract until you have answered these questions. Is that a fair re- 
quest? 

Mr. HiNSON. Well actually, no, sir, I can't do that because we 
signed a contract last night. 

Senator Bond. Oh, you did? 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator Bond. You have signed it already? 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator Bond. Congratulations. 

Mr. HiNSON. Using our new authority. Senator Bond, I know this 
is — I understand your questions, and I understand why you are 
asking them. These are some of the difficult decisions that we have 
to make at FAA to do what we believe is correct, and we are not 
always going to be able to accommodate every contractor's inputs 
and performance. 

In this case, I want to assure you that the FAA went out of their 
way to provide close working assistance with Wilcox. We have a 
long relationship with Wilcox, as you have alluded to. They do very 
good work, and they are an ongoing contractor to us in a number 
of other areas. 

We have a good relationship there. They are known to us. It is 
not easy or desirable for us to terminate a relationship of this type, 
because it is certainly in our interest as well as theirs to be suc- 
cessful. 

On the other hand, we have the obligation to deal with reality 
and their lack of performance. Those are the facts as we see them. 
We believe we have executed our responsibilities appropriately. We 
have used the new procurement and acquisition authorities we 
have in the interest of the taxpayer. We are going down that road. 

We are doing exactly what I believe we have been asked to do, 
sir. I will answer in any detail you would like all the questions we 
have. We would be pleased to do it in person, if you chose. We will 
send as many people to see you as you would like, and try to ex- 
plain to your satisfaction our actions in any way that would be ap- 
propriate for you, sir, or the committee. 

Senator Bond. Well, Mr. Administrator, you certainly do not' 
have to satisfy me. I do have some very real questions. I am from 
Missouri, and I do have to be shown on this. 

Mr. HnsrsoN. Yes, sir. 



191 

Senator Bond. I have been disappointed, very greatly dis- 
appointed, by your announcements because it does not square with 
the information I received. I know this committee will be most in- 
terested in the material you provide. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time, and I thank the ranking 
member. I will have questions later when we find out about the 
user fee proposals. I also have some questions dealing with the new 
Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act and the agency review 
measures passed by Congress and signed by the President. I will 
submit those for the record. I will also submit, as I indicated, spe- 
cific questions to the Administrator with respect to the WAAS con- 
tract. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPIRED TAXES 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you. Senator Bond. 

Let me go back to the trust fund situation that Senator Lauten- 
berg commented on in his opening remarks. Mr. Hinson, the au- 
thority to collect some of these taxes lapsed, as you know, on De- 
cember 31, 1995, the last calendar year. Could you give us a pre- 
cise amount, a figure in dollars, as to how much that has drained 
out of the trust fund without having this tax? 

Mr. HiNSON. Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of January of this 
calendar year, the trust fund had an unobligated balance of about 
$5.1 billion. There was approximately $12 billion, $7 billion of 
which is already spent, basically. 

Senator Hatfield. That is the day after it lapsed? 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir; as Senator Lautenberg suggests, we have 
been paying out the unobligated balance at the rate of about $500 
million a month, in that neighborhood. Within the past week or so, 
there has been a rescission of $650 million which goes back into 
the trust fund, so we are a little better off than we were. 

Based upon our original forecast, without reimposition of the 
taxes, the unobligated balance would have been expended in the 
October/November timeframe, so now we could say November/De- 
cember with this decision. 

Senator Hatfield. Zero balance? 

Mr. HiNSON. Zero unobligated balance, yes, sir. 

Senator Hatfield. Zero unobligated balance. 

Mr. HiNSON. The balance that is in there is being spent as we 
have to have the cash in hand before we buy radars, and so forth. 

RESTORATION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND TAXES 

Senator Hatfield. Has the DOT scheduled any meetings with 
Treasu^ or the Senate Finance Committee or the House Ways and 
Means Committee to deal with this issue? 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir; I have personally visited the Ways and 
Means Committee in the House to urge the reimposition of the 
taxes, I have discussed it with your staff and others in the Senate 
and generally made known our belief that the four taxes which ex- 
pired — that is, the airline ticket tax, the waybill cargo tax, the fuel 
tax, and the international departure taxes — should be reimposed at 
the earliest opportunity. 

Senator Hatfield. What was the response? 



192 

Mr. HiNSON. Well 

Senator Hatfield. Summarize or in general. 

Mr. HiNSON. I am trying to think of the appropriate language. 
I am not sure one size fits all, Mr. Chairman, in my response. Ob- 
viously, concern by everybody that we have discussed this with, 
varying degrees of optimism about being able to do it. 

Senator Hatfield. I am puzzled as to why something of this seri- 
ous nature has not received more attention. What has been the re- 
action of the airport managers, the general carriers, the general 
aviation, and all the other aviation-related interests? Why have 
there not been more red flags on this question? Are there industry 
battles being fought which have hindered the reinstitution of the 
tax? 

Mr. HiNSON. Well, clearly there are various views in the industry 
about the appropriateness and the type of funding that would be 
appropriate for the FAA long term, as you know, because of sort 
of a confluence of events: the lapse of the taxing authority at the 
end of December; the introduction of a House FAA reform bill with 
a proposed study about how we go forward to finance the FAA; and 
the potential debate in the Senate about a reform bill that Senators 
McCain, Ford, and Hollings are sponsoring on a user fee approach 
to financing. 

A difference of opinions among air carriers about what is good 
and bad for them as individuals, relative to the type of user fees 
or taxes imposed, has basically resulted in sort of a user commu- 
nity that has a myriad of views about how we should go forward 
with financing the FAA. I am sure that your committee and others 
are being lobbied heavily by the industry's various views. 

Senator HATFIELD. Have you asked any assistance from these 
aviation-related groups that I enumerated: genersd aviation, the 
carriers, and airports? 

Mr. HiNSON. No, sir; I cannot do that, sir. 

Senator Hatfield. You are not allowed by law? 

Mr. HiNSON. No, sir. 

Senator Hatfield. We could ask? 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir; in fact, I am very careful in my public ut- 
terances and speeches to always say I am not lobbying, sir, and 
then I go ahead and make my speech. [Laughter.] 

Senator Hatfield. No; see, I am not suggesting a lobbying role; 
it is a matter of information. The seriousness of this situation is 
such that every one of these groups are going to realize, if they do 
not now, that there are serious, serious impacts down the road, 
sooner than we maybe can act. 

Mr. HiNSON. Mr. Chairman, my Deputy Linda Daschle who gives 
a number of speeches equal to mine has joined me in every oppor- 
tunity to point out the seriousness of the lapse of the taxes at the 
end of December. 

It clearly distresses us to see the trust fund being depleted with- 
out a knowledge or certainty that they will be replenished, particu- 
larly when we begin to look at the difficulty that your committee 
and others face in Congress in dealing with the discretionary part 
of the Federal budget. 

I have described, Mr. Chairman, in my various conversations on 
this issue, and these are approximations, 62 percent of the Federal 



193 

budget is mandated spending and 38 percent is discretionary. Of 
the 38, 16 percent goes to the Department of Defense, 15 percent 
for obligated trusts and other things. This leaves 5 percent, or one 
nickel out of every tax dollar, available to run the rest of the Gov- 
ernment. 

We are engaged in the debate for that nickel with all of the rest 
of Government that requires discretionary spending, so that the ex- 
piration of the trust fund is of great concern to us. 

FUNDING ALLOCATIONS 

Senator Hatfield. I fully subscribe to your analysis. However, I 
am going to go back to my point and say this. This committee deals 
with every form of transportation, as you know. And there is no 
hesitancy for the rails, long-distance or light rail, or highways or 
waterways, to make known to this committee the situation that 
they are looking at down the road on these general reductions 
made out of the budget resolution itself and out of what we have 
made as general reductions. As you know, we cut $23 billion out 
of nondefense discretionary funding in the 1996 cycle. 

Mr. Hestson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hatfield. Just completed last week. It prompted a reac- 
tion that brought forth every one of those groups to have consulta- 
tion with individual members and with our staffs of what is going 
to happen in 1997, what is going to happen in 1998. Because those 
same statistics are going to lead us to an absolute zero funding for 
all the provisions of Government, policies and programs in Govern- 
ment, except entitlements and mandated spending by the year 
2012. 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hatfield. All the revenues we collect in this Federal 
Government system will be taken up by the entitlements and the 
mandated spending and the interest on our national debt. You will 
not be fighting over a nickel, you will be fighting over whether you 
are going to be deficit financed or not. 

Mr. Hestson. Yes, sir; we appreciate that. That is one of the prin- 
cipal motivations for our support of your colleague Senator 
McCain's bill which contemplates transitioning the FAA from a 
trust fund and general fund-supported agency over a period of 6 or 
7 years in our proposal to a user fee, as to be defined, funded agen- 
cy that is outside of the annual budgeting process. 

AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPIRED TAXES 

Senator Hatfield. Well, it puzzles me, though, again why the 
Portland International Airport from my home State or the 
Redmond Airport or all the other smaller airports have not con- 
tacted me or my staff about this trust fund disappearing, why TWA 
or United Airlines or any other carriers have not contacted me, or 
general aviation. Believe me, when we are talking about increasing 
a tax, they contact us pretty quickly. Yet, I have not heard from 
any — Senator, have you had any? 

Senator Lautenberg. The alarm has not been raised. 

Senator Hatfield. Tom, have you? Peter? [Laughter.] 

I knew it was not Tom. 

Senator Lautenberg. Or Tom. 



194 

Senator Hatfield. Tom, Dick, or Harry have not been contacted. 
[Laughter.] 

How do you explain that? 

Mr. HiNSON. Well, actually, Mr. Chairman, there are several alli- 
ances that have been formed to deal with FAA funding represent- 
ing the alphabet groups that support your airport in Redmond and 
Portland, the ACI, AAAE, and others, the Airplane Owners and Pi- 
lots Association, the National Air Transport Association, et cetera. 
They have, in fact, as I understand it, been talking to Senate staffs 
and House staffs about the issue of FAA funding. 

I certainly share your concern that it does not have the visibility 
it deserves to have. It is of great concern to us. I think one of the 
messages I am getting this morning, sir, is that we need to make 
more noise and we will do that. 

MC CAIN-FORD-HOLLINGS REFORM BILL 

Senator Hatfield. You comment in your testimony about my let- 
ter to Senator McCain. What is your prognosis at this time of the 
McCain-Ford reauthorization reform bill? 

Mr. HiNSON. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Senator McCain's 
bill, that the bill that he and Senator Ford and Senator Hollings 
are sharing the responsibility for, could receive the careful and due 
deliberation of the Senate in a prompt fashion — in other words, as 
soon as possible — so that the concept of how to fund the FAA, 
whatever it may be, just being academic for a moment, can be en- 
tered into conference with the House and debated so that we can 
resolve this issue. 

Senator Hatfield. Well, we have 30 legislative days left. 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hatfield. Then I am liberated and going home. I would 
like to help get this somehow on track before I leave. 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hatfield. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. The 
whole thing is a plot to keep you here. [Laughter.] 

financing the federal aviation administration 

We will extend the legislative year, if necessary. 

Mr. Hinson, according to 0MB, part of the revenue that would 
result from the restoration of the ticket tax is going to be necessary 
if the President's budget is to get to a zero deficit by 2002. Now, 
separately you have endorsed the notion of terminating the ticket 
tax in favor of a user fee replacement. Am I correct in those state- 
ments? 

Mr. Hinson. We would prefer to take the four existing taxes and 
call them fees. It is a very efficient way of providing funds to the 
agency. We have some 

Senator Lautenberg. Would you like to see a ticket fee con- 
tinue? 

Mr. Hinson. The method of charging the traveling public for air 
traffic control services could be set in that fashion, yes, sir. 

Senator Lautenberg. OK. Because if the administration is set to 
embrace the elimination of the ticket tax, I do not know how we 
can replenish the coffers sufficiently to get to end of game. Senator 



195 

Hatfield's commentary about the lack of an alarm going out about 
the disappearance of the trust fund I find shocking. 

It does not get a lot of publicity in the press. We do not hear 
about it a lot. The office phone is not ringing. I am shocked. What 
do people think is going to happen, people in the industry who are 
responsible for carrying all these people? What do they think is 
going to happen when D-day comes? It is not far off 

It worries me and obviously it worries Senator Hatfield. We will 
be looking for responses in the remaining time this year to try to 
get something underway. This is approaching liferaft proportions, 
and we have to get it done. 

NEW YORK CENTER AND NEW YORK TRACON 

I wanted to ask you some more questions, returning to the per- 
sonnel question. The bonus that is available for 7 percent, the pay 
bonus, a short list of facilities, and the bonuses scheduled to in- 
crease to 10 percent beginning October 1, in my region the bonus 
only being paid to FAA personnel at the New York Center and at 
the New York TRACON, the same two facilities that benefited from 
the pay differential program that is in place, how do we explain not 
providing this pay bonus to the other FAA facilities in, let us say, 
the New York and New Jersey region, the cost of living for any of 
these? It is no less there, around the facilities, than in the specific 
TRACON and New York Center that have it. 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes; Senator Lautenberg, I have asked Monte 
Belger, who heads air traffic, to join me to help answer that. I will 
just start by saying that your question could be broadened to the 
entire FAA. We did have a reason and a logic for picking the ones 
that we did, and I will ask Mr. Belger to explain. 

Mr. Belger. Yes, sir; we tried to focus more on operational com- 
plexity and size than we did on cost-of-living types of issues. Every- 
body in the New York area, basically, already receives the 8^2 per- 
cent cost-of-living allowance. 

What we tried to look at were really in three areas, three factors, 
that we considered: One was volume, number of operations that 
these facilities handle. 

A second area that we looked at was oceanic responsibilities. We 
are very, very concerned about our ability to keep up with the air- 
lines and to put into place the new systems that we need to provide 
the benefits to the airlines in the oceanic areas. That is why we fo- 
cused on the New York Center and the Oakland Center. 

The third area we looked at was our historical records concerning 
the ability to attract and retain people at these facilities. In other 
words, another way to say that would be whether or not the facili- 
ties historically had been hard to staff. 

Our records really don't show that the towers have been that 
hard to staff over the years. We have generally been able to keep 
the towers very close to their authorized staffing levels. That has 
not been the case in some of the centers and TRACON's. 

Senator Lautenberg. The towers are kind of the front line of ac- 
tivity. I think there is a natural attraction to want to be where 
most of the activity takes place. Nonetheless, I think it is fair to 
say that within the towers the stress level is very high, that the 
requirements there if the weather changes are pretty rigid. 



196 

I think that you have a problem with persuading the people who 
want to do their job in the towers that they are less stressful, less 
demanding than the other centers. Does this take into account the 
proximity of the airspace that the controllers are working in rel- 
ative to other airports in the vicinity? 

Mr. Belger. No, sir; we did not get into that level of detail for 
this phase, but I think I should expand the answer to the question. 
Pay incentive is the first step in a new approach to longstanding 
problems we have had with staffing and retention at some very 
complex facilities. It is not a reinstitution of the old pay demonstra- 
tion program. 

We have committed with our labor organizations to look at ways 
to put in place new classification standards and tie to that a new 
compensation system that will appropriately address the complex- 
ities that were referenced in your question. 

The complexities in towers, in many cases, may not have the vol- 
ume to be considered as one of the complex facilities, but because 
of the runway configuration, because of the coordination required 
with other facilities, they are very complex facilities. Teterboro 
Tower is a very good example of what I am talking about. 

We are working very closely with the Air Traffic Controllers 
Union and the Technician and Engineers Union to develop new 
standards for classification that will appropriately recognize these 
complexity factors; our current standards do not do that. 

STAFFING AT NEWARK TOWER 

Senator Lautenberg. What I am hearing is that the controller 
staffing at Newark is about to drop to its lowest level in several 
years. Everyone knows that traffic in the area, and Newark in par- 
ticular, has expanded significantly. I think in the last 15 years, 
probably up by 30 percent. 

I was told as recently as yesterday that the staffing at Newark 
will soon drop to 26 controllers. That is below, well below, the au- 
thorized level. To make matters worse, and I had put this question 
before to Mr. Hinson, there is less than $1,000 remaining in the 
allocation of overtime for controllers at the Newark Tower. We 
have not gotten into the busy summertime season. 

How do you explain this precipitous drop in staffing at Newark? 
Is it consistent with staffing situations at other towers in the 
Northeast region and across the country? 

Mr. Belger. The authorized staffing at Newark Tower for air 
traffic controllers is 30, as you said, and that has been the case 
since 1994. My information, Senator, is that there are currently 29 
air traffic controllers on board in the facility. We anticipate losing 
two controllers in the near future. However, we have selected three 
controllers to come into Newark, which would put us at the 30 
level. We fully anticipate that we will be at the authorized level 
consistently. 

Senator Lautenberg. Are these controllers that are fully trained 
coming from Teterboro or other nearby airports that might then, in 
turn, have the same shortage problem that Newark has in terms 
of whether or not the number is exactly what we think it is going 
to be? We are talking about a couple of people, a couple of people 
very significant in a work force that size. Let us organize that be- 



197 

tween us. If you can talk with Peter on my staff, I would like to 
do that. 

Mr. Belger. Yes, sir. 

Senator Lautenberg. Do those controllers come from Teterboro 
or nearby installations, and are they fully trained? 

Mr. Belger. Any new controller who comes to a facility like 
Newark will have to go through a period of training to become fa- 
miliar with the processes, the procedures, and the equipment at 
Newark Airport before they reach the FPL level at that tower. I 
will provide for the record the specifics of where these folks are 
coming from. 

[The information follows:] 

The two employees scheduled to report to Newark Tower are from Teterboro 
Tower. To be eligible for release from Teterboro, controllers must have completed 
18 months as fuirperformance level controllers. 

Mr. Belger. Generally, I think as history would show you, they 
do come from the surrounding facilities in the New York area. In 
fact, we would encourage that rather than incur the permanent 
change-of-station costs to move people. 

We are trying, quite frankly, to move people and promote people 
as much as we can within geographic areas and try to avoid those 
costs of moving. 

I should say, because this is an opportunity to say something 
very, very positive about the New York area, if you look at Newark 
Airport, particularly the work that the air traffic controllers and 
the folks at our regional office have done working with Continental 
Airlines and others, you will see a remarkable success story at 
Newark Airport. 

Newark used to be consistently the most delayed airport in the 
country. That is no longer the case. It is now No. 7 on the list and 
improving every day. That is the result of the work that our con- 
trollers have done with the airlines and with the airport to put in 
new procedures, and the result of some new equipment there. Gen- 
erally, that is the picture in the entire New York area. Delays are 
down and performance is consistently improving in the New York 
area. 

working conditions at NEWARK AND TETERBORO 

Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Belger, I am not sure, however, that 
those improvements — and there are observable improvements — do 
not come out of the hides of the people that work there. I would 
ask you to have a review of those folks. I have talked to them and 
perhaps we can even talk to them together. 

What I hear is less time away from the machinery, that break 
time — shortages of fully trained personnel are often seen. They are 
concerned about the overtime pool not being big enough to help put 
in the time necessary to continue the improvements that we want. 
The local FAA official at Teterboro has asked for more controllers 
for 5 years: so far, denied. 

When you talk about FPL's, you say, "Well, they have got to 
train on the job." Well, that is obvious. Newark is a different sta- 
tion. Each one of them is. But there is a minimum amount of train- 
ing that they should bring with them when they get into that 
tower. 



198 
Mr. Belger. Absolutely. 

NEW YORK CENTER AND NEW YORK TRACON 

Senator Lautenberg. That is a problem, Mr. Administrator, that 
I am going the ask you and your team to look at carefully. We will 
review it outside the hearing to see what we can do. 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir; if I could just add one point. I focused very 
closely on all of the New York facilities really since last spring. You 
might be aware that we did some special reviews in the New York 
Center and the New York TRACON last year, both management 
and the labor organizations together did those. We have followed 
up on every one of the recommendations that came from those re- 
ports last year. 

We look at overtime very closely. Across the country in the first 
6 months of the year, we have obligated about 51 percent of our 
available overtime. If we need to make priority movements of 
money, we will do that, sir. 

CONTROLLER STAFFING 

Senator Lautenberg. If you have a request for 250 additional 
controllers, if you received adequate funding for these spots, would 
you be able to staff all of your facilities to the levels called for in 
your own staffing standards? 

Mr. Belger. Today, we are staffed across the country at 98.7 
percent, I believe, of the staffing standard level. Across the country, 
we are virtually staffed at the staffing standard level. 

We have had some difficulties at some specific facilities. Those 
are the ones that we have focused on in the past year: the New 
Yorks, the Chicagos, for example. In the New York area, in all four 
of the largest facilities — the Center, the TRACON, La Guardia, and 
Kennedy Tower — we increased the authorized staffing levels last 
year. 

Senator Lautenberg. Increases are important, but full staffing 
is even more important. That is a question that I think remains 
open in front of us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PORTLAND and KLAMATH FALLS TOWERS 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

Mr. Hinson, let me now move from the east coast to the west 
coast and refer to two towers in Oregon, Portland and Klamath 
Falls. You have included in your budget for 1997, $14.9 million for 
phase III of the Portland construction. Does this complete the con- 
struction commitment, and what is your projected date for the com- 
pletion and the commissioning? Also, you might take on that I do 
not see any request for the completion of the Klamath Falls Tower. 
Again, I would like to know what you are projecting for 1997 and 
for the completion of the construction and the commissioning. 

Mr. Hinson. Mr. Chairman, we will start the construction at 
Klamath Falls on October 10, 1996, this calendar year. It will be 
completed in 1998 in the appropriate time it takes to build that 
tower. 

Senator Hatfield. Excuse me. 



199 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes? 

Senator Hatfield. There is not a line item request for that 
Klamath Falls, I believe, in your budget. We are using prior-year 
money, I was just informed. 

Mr. HiNSON. It does begin in October 1996. Portland begins June 
1998. This delay was a result of resiting the tower because they are 
looking at some other changes on the airport, and it will be com- 
missioned in late 1999, November 1999. Both of those towers are 
funded and on their way. 

Senator Hatfield. I can go home with peace of mind on those 
two towers? 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir; I hope to be flying in and out of them, too, 
Mr. Chairman. 

FAA PERSONNEL REFORM 

Senator Hatfield. Good. Mr. Hinson, let me just throw out two 
more questions, and then I will submit the others in writing. Do 
you remember when we undertook FAA reform in the appropria- 
tions process last year? 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator HATFIELD. Despite the initial apprehension and even op- 
position, as you know, that was raised in some instances under 
personnel reform, FAA had the latitude to actually increase the 
pay for controllers and maintenance personnel in several areas. 
Please explain, if you can, how you did that and the cost of that 
action? 

Mr. HiNSON. I will ask Mr. Belger to help me with the specifics. 

Senator Hatfield. Are the unions now satisfied with these re- 
forms that they will actually benefit the work force as we had origi- 
nally intended this requirement of reform to do? 

Mr. HiNSON. Mr. Chairman, let me start answering your ques- 
tion in this way. I am going to back off for just a minute, take a 
little more historical perspective. One of the challenges that we 
face at the FAA long-term is the fact that we are fundamentally 
an information processing organization. We do hard work too. 

We have dedicated people maintaining navigation and airspace 
infrastructure, and we do research and development in a lot of 
areas, and so forth. However, we are fundamentally an information 
processing organization. All of air traffic is information processing, 
certification and regulations information processing, et cetera, et 
cetera. 

The world is changing very fast. The rate of technology insertion 
is accelerating. Senator Lautenberg was in that business, and he 
knows firsthand about what we are faced with in this context. 

The processes and the circumstances surrounding the way the 
Federal Aviation Administration is managed and budgeted and 
maintained are, or historically were, I should say, historically, cast 
in some cases as far back as 100 years. 

We were, and are still, engaged in trying to manage a fundamen- 
tal disconnect between the rate at which we have to change and 
manage the enterprise that we have so that we can serve the user's 
community, and the processes that we have within which to work. 

In a way the opportunity that you have given us through the ap- 
propriations process last year to step aside from some of those old 



200 

processes and have a fresh look at personnel and acquisition proc- 
esses will, we believe to a large extent, help us close this dis- 
connect. 

I will give you one or two examples of why this is very important. 
Dr. Donohue would tell you that in the communications business 
now the large telephone companies and communications corpora- 
tions have changed their big switches on their technology every 5 
years. 

We have switches that are 20 and 25 and in some cases tech- 
nology that is 30 years old. We have 45,000 radios, old analog VHF 
radios, out in the field that are very, very old. Our ability to insert 
technology and get away from the old acquisition paradigm of buy- 
ing it here and throwing it in the wastebasket out here 25 years 
later has to go away. 

We simply are going to be having hearing after hearing over the 
next many years, if we do not do this, about why we are late or 
not keeping up with what is going on in the industry. 

We appreciate how difficult it is for Congress, in many respects, 
to sort of let go of some of the oversight of the FAA and give us 
some freedoms. I can assure you that we understand the respon- 
sibilities that we have and we are moving very carefully. Some will 
say not bold enough and not with enough imagination initially; but, 
on the other hand, we manage safety. We have to be certain that 
what we do works. We are moving somewhat cautiously; but very 
importantly, we are moving. 

The first morning after April 1, after we had our new authorities, 
I instructed Dr. Verburg to hire the head of training for NASA to 
come to the FAA to head up an entire new training organization 
we were putting into place. It is an area that we have needed to 
deal with for a long time. 

I have asked Mr. Broderick to go ahead and begin hiring the 
technical specialists that we have been trying to hire for over 3 
years, and because of a govemmentwide quota on SES positions we 
were precluded from so doing. 

Technology specialists in areas like composites, icing, propeller 
technology, glass cockpit, information processing in the cockpit, and 
so forth, 21 specialties to be exact where we need excellent, high- 
quality, academic people who can bring the FAA into the state of 
the art relative to all these new technologies. 

All of this is by way of saying, before Mr. Belger answers your 
question, a little circuitous, for which I apologize. It also impacts 
the third leg of the stool, that you alluded to earlier and Senator 
Lautenberg talked about, right away, which is our financing. 

The effectiveness of our so-called new management processes at 
the agency will be less effective if we do not get the third leg of 
the stool, which is financing and an ability to have a predictable 
long-term source of revenue from which to manage the FAA. This 
begs a whole host of other questions. 

Since I am a political appointee, and I have a relatively defined 
tenure here, and I have the freedom to say what I see when I come 
in, I will tell you that the way we have budgeted and managed the 
finances of the agency in the past is not adequate for the future. 
It may have worked well in the past, but it will not work in the 
future. 



201 

We need to get away from the annual 12-month exercise of fund- 
ing the agency, even though we have a 5-year horizon through the 
processes in terms of just looking. It has little discipline. Most peo- 
ple ignore it because we know every year we are going to go 
through the appropriations process. 

We need a 5-year, rolling business plan that we agree with Con- 
gress on, so that we can take the long horizons about where we 
need to go and how we need to spend our money. That is a whole 
separate issue, sir, but one that is extremely important, if the 
agency is to accomplish its mission as we go forward. 

We do not have simple concepts like depreciation or create re- 
serves. There is a bow wave of obligations in front of us for all of 
this new equipment we have purchased over the past 15 years. Life 
cycle costs is a concept that has been late in coming. We do not un- 
derstand how much money we are going to have to spend 10 years 
from now to maintain what we are buying today, for example. 

While we treat this around the edge, we do not treat it in a pro- 
fessional businesslike manner. We do treat it. In fact, your staff 
and others have worked closely with us on many of these questions. 
The fact is the process itself needs to be better defined. 

Now, having said all of that as sort of a background and appre- 
ciation for what you have let us start to do, let me ask Mr. Belger 
to answer your specific question. 

Mr. Belger. The flexibilities that you gave us along with the re- 
lief from title V did allow us to make some changes in our work 
rules and definitions and scheduling practices, which we would not 
have been able to do under title V. Those savings are going to be 
adequate to allow us to fund, in a cost-neutral way, these incen- 
tives that we have put in place. 

Some of the old work rules which were tied to title V and subse- 
quent legal rulings, quite frankly, some of the changes were even 
recommended by the unions, by the labor organizations. We 
reached agreement on those. 

In some cases, we will now be able to schedule more flexibly in 
the facilities without having to worry about whether we will pay 
overtime or not by virtue of that scheduling. 

We have made quite a few changes in those areas. We did that 
very collaboratively with the labor organizations. They were in- 
volved on all of the work groups that we set up. I personally spent 
a week with the leaders of the labor organizations going over all 
of these issues before they were finalized and before the Adminis- 
trator announced them on the 1st of April. 

Now, we do not agree on everything. I do not want to leave the 
impression that we agree on every single thing with the labor orga- 
nizations, but we have tried very, very hard to work these issues 
very closely with them. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you very much. 

Senator Gorton. 

PREPARED STATEMENT 

Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an opening 
statement that I would just like you to include in the record. 
Senator Hatfield. It will be included in the record. 
[The statement follows:] 



202 

Prepared Statement ok Senator Gorton 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to welcome Administrator Hinson and other rep- 
resentatives from the Federal Aviation Administration, and I would like to thank 
them for taking time out of their busy schedules to meet with us this morning. 

First, let me applaud the efforts of everyone at the FAA who participated in im- 
plementing the personnel and procurement reforms over the past seven months. 
While members of Congress have had some difficulties in agreeing on most appro- 
priate means of reforming the Federal Aviation Administration, representatives 
from FAA, after being given the authority by this subcommittee last year, have en- 
acted real reforms. These reforms have led to an expedited acquisition process that 
brings new systems into service in approximately half the time that it previously 
may have taken and reduces the overall regulatory paperwork. These reforms allow 
the FAA to operate more like a business and less like a bureaucratic agency. I hope 
these simple reforms can serve as a model for other agencies to understand the im- 
portance of a common sense approach to government. 

While I am pleased with these reform efforts, I also have two fundamental con- 
cerns with the Administration's fiscal year 1997 budget request — the new user fees 
and the level of funding of the Airport Improvement Program. The Administration 
has proposed the collection of $150 million in new user fees as a means of increasing 
its revenue streams. While I believe that something must be done to ensure ade- 
quate funding for the FAA and charging some form of limited user fee to those who 
use the aviation system seems to be an appropriate way to raise revenue, I am pri- 
marily concerned with the implementation of those fees. Who will pay these new 
fees? How will they be used? Is this new user fee a building block for more user 
fees in the future? All of these questions are concerns I have, and I hope that this 
hearing today will clarify some of these issues. 

My second concern is the low level of funding for the Airport Improvement Pro- 
gram proposed in the President's budget. While this Administration continues to 
boast about its investment in transportation infrastructure, the President's fiscal 
year 1997 budget funds the Airport Improvement Program at $1.35 billion. Mr. 
Chairman, that is $100 million below last year's enacted level and the lowest overall 
request for AIP within the past seven years. As a member of the Budget Committee, 
I am even more concerned that this already low number of $1.35 billion is the high- 
est level of AIP funding over the next six years under the President's budget. In 
the year 2000, the President's budget drops AIP funding down to a low of $1.01 bil- 
lion. 

I must say that it seems ironic that the "Infrastructure Administration" is cutting 
this important program to extremely low levels. This program provides valuable 
capital and operating funds for over three thousand small, medium and large air- 
ports across tne country, and as you may remember from last year, Mr. Chairman, 
I joined fourteen of our colleagues in signing a letter, which was sent to you, asking 
for the highest possible level of funding for AIP in fiscal year 1996. While I admit 
that the fiscal year 1996 level of $1.45 billion was not as high as many, including 
myself, had wanted, I certainly hope that my colleagues will not support funding 
for AIP at $100 million below last year's enacted level. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Administrator taking the time to be 
with us today. While I applaud his efforts to implement meaningful reform, I hope 
that he can continue to work with this subcommittee to resolve my other concerns. 
Thank you. 

NOISE MITIGATION PROGRAM 

Senator GORTON. I would like to welcome the Administrator here 
and congratulate him on some very real reforms and some very 
real changes that he has made, to express a certain degree of 
alarm over the relatively low budget figure for the Airport Improve- 
ment Program, and the hope that we will be able to do this year 
what we did last year under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and 
see that that very important program is appropriately continued. 

I do have one set of questions for you, Mr. Hinson, that I put just 
a short time ago to Secretary Peiia. I asked him about the FAA's 
new policy limiting each airport to $5 million in grants. As I know 
you are aware, Seattle-Tacoma has been a national leader in air- 
port noise mitigation programs and was the first to implement the 



203 

local housing insulation program. SEA-TAC's current program is 
scheduled to run through the year 2001. 

I want you to answer, as I did Secretary Pena, whether or not 
you think that airports that have already committed to large scale 
noise programs before this new policy should have continued access 
to previous levels of funding or be subjected to the $5 million cap? 

Mr. HiNSON. Good morning, Senator Gorton. I have with me Jim 
Washington, who is the Acting Administrator for Airports, and I 
would ask him to join me in this answer because it is a very com- 
plicated question that we have been asked. 

Senator Gorton. Fine. 

Mr. Washington. Good morning. Senator Gorton. We certainly 
agree that the importance of noise mitigation around the country 
is a very high priority. With reduced levels of discretionary funding 
available during the past 2 years, and in fiscal year 1996, we insti- 
tuted the cap that you are referring to of $5 million per airport lo- 
cation for residences and another $3 million for institutional noise 
mitigation. We did this so that we could reach more local commu- 
nities in terms of total numbers, which otherwise would not receive 
high enough priority if they competed simply without that cap ap- 
plied to each location. Our attempt this year would essentially 
allow us to reach more communities with the reduced level of fund- 
ing that is available in the noise set-aside program. 

Now, having said that, as you indicated, SEA-TAC in particular 
has been an authority that has exercised a very aggressive noise 
mitigation program. Since 1992, I believe, SEA-TAC has invested 
some $26 million. 

In an effort to address their needs to continue this commitment 
to the local communities that surround the airport, we are looking 
right this moment with the airport at what specific needs they 
have, and how we might address those in the context of our cap, 
and what might be done in addition to that. 

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING 

Senator GORTON. Well, that is not a bad answer. 

Mr. Washington. Let me be more specific, if I may. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HiNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman and Senator Gorton, I thought 
it was a good answer, actually. 

Mr. Washington. It is time to stop dancing, is that what you are 
saying? 

Senator Gorton. Leave that door a little bit ajar, maybe? 

Mr. Washington. That is part of what I am saying. Specifically, 
we have allocated all of the known discretionary money to date for 
fiscal year 1996 on a national basis. At this point, what we are 
identifying is any unused entitlement funds that are carried over 
from prior years. 

We will identify that specific amount by the end of June of this 
year, so that by the first 2 weeks in July we can identify the high- 
est priority locations that, in our estimation, have the greatest 
need for us to provide additional support and funding. I anticipate 
that Seattle would be among those high-priority locations. 

Senator Gorton. I do thank you for that answer. We got a rel- 
atively favorable and deeply concerned answer, you know, from the 
Secretary last week, and I know that you are quite aware of that. 



204 

Obviously, you cannot spend any more money than we appropriate 
for you in a particular field. 

The cap, while it spreads money further than would otherwise be 
spread, also carries with it the implication that was quite clear 
from your answer to me, that it means that some of the money will 
be used for lower priority projects when one looks at any set of cri- 
teria based on need or on merit. 

Obviously, there are strong political considerations in favor of 
spreading the money as far as one can. I just want to remind you 
that there are strong equitable considerations for keeping commit- 
ments that you and your predecessors have made. 

At least your answer tells me that you are going to attempt to 
a certain degree to do that. I would like a followup to the overall 
question as we look to appropriations for future years. However, I 
tnank you both for the answers that you have given to me. 

AUTOMATED FLIGHT 

I have one more question for you, Mr. Hinson, of a much more 
broad nature than my interest in my own principal airport having 
to do with safety. I know that you are aware of an article that re- 
cently appeared in the Washington Post entitled, "Airlines Take 
Hard Look at Automated Flight." The essential argument outlined 
in this article is at what point real people should take over from 
a computer in flying aircraft. 

The article said that: 

American AiHines, stunned by its recent jet crash in Cali is planning to end its 
policy of training pilots to try to sort out in-flight anomalies with their computers 
instead of turning off the computers and flying tne plane manually. 

I know that the National Transportation Safety Board is still 
months away from a final decision on the causes of that particular 
crash. I would like you to share with us your thoughts on this issue 
as a general principle. 

Mr. Hinson. Senator, this issue of automation is not new to the 
FAA. In fact, a lot of the leading research in the world has been 
done in the FAA on the human factors aspect of automation, cock- 
pit design, the physiology of the cockpit, fundamental rudimentary 
questions like: What does your eye perceive relative to an analog 
versus a digital indicator and a whole host of other things? I am 
reasonably familiar with this, having been an engineering pilot. 

I gave a talk last year called the Site Lecture at the Links Club 
in New York about safety. One of the graphs, which I will be happy 
to provide to you and your staff and others of this committee, 
shows a very direct correlation between safety and the introduction 
of automation. That is to say, over the past 50 years, there is an 
almost linear correlation between the introduction of automation in 
airplanes and safety. The more we automate, the safer they are. 

Now, that does not make them always safe. This problem is very 
complex and breaks down into many subunits and subdisciplines 
and other things. I have read the article as well. With all due re- 
spect to the reporter, it was in our business sort of a first grade 
article. 

Senator GORTON. OK. 

Mr. Hinson. I am sure that your colleagues at Boeing and Se- 
attle would agree if they read it. It was a generally interesting arti- 



205 

cle; but from a scientific and knowledge perspective, of little con- 
sequence to what we do with the air carriers and how we do it. The 
whole question of the so-called glass cockpit 

Senator GORTON. We have occasionally given grades like that to 
newspaper articles on other subjects. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir; well, I was trying to be polite, sir. It is a 
serious subject, and one that occupies the intellectual thoughts of 
many dedicated engineers who are in this business as a profession. 
There are people who spend their entire life working in the area 
of cockpit design automation, human factors, et cetera, et cetera. 

NASA does this, and the industry does it. Your own home com- 
pany of Boeing, where I was 3 weeks ago with Mr. Broderick flying 
a new technology in their 747/400 simulator is one of the world's 
leaders as well. 

It is an evolving science, and it always troubles an air carrier 
when there is an accident that is perceived to be the result of, say, 
too much complexity, and will cause them, as it should, to rethink 
the way their pilots interact with the equipment on the airplane. 

As a fundamental tenet, it is safe to say that we have automated, 
and we have improved safety. The question is how to manage that 
to make it even safer. Therein is the challenge for not only the 
FAA, but for everybody that builds airplanes and cockpits. 

Senator Gorton. I thank you very much for that answer. 

Mr. HiNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gorton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Hatfield. Senator Gorton, thank you. 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS 

Mr. Hinson, we will submit those questions on behalf of Senator 
Reid, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Bond, and other members of 
this subcommittee who were not able to be with us today for your 
consideration and response. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 
submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hear- 
ing:] 



206 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HATFIELD 



FUNDING FOR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION (PCS) MOVES 

Question. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has requested millions 
of dollars in the last few years for permanent change of station, or PCS, moves for its 
staff. In fiscal year 1994, for example, FAA requested $19 million to relocate 466 
members of the air traffic work to areas where their skills were more urgently needed. 
Much of the fiscal year 1994 PCS appropriation went for other purposes, however. 
To what extent did the use of PCS funding intended for air traffic controllers and 
safety inspectors for other purposes impact FAA's ability to ensure aviation safety and 
compensate for workforce imbalances? 

Answer. Actual fiscal year 1994 funding of Air Traffic PCS moves was 
slightly over $14 million versus $19 million in the fiscal year 1994 budget request, a 
decrease of $5 million. The $5 million was reprogrammed from PCS to help pay for 
the unbudgeted locality pay increase and buyouts. The reduction in PCS funds in 
fiscal year 1994 did not impact aviation safety, but it did limit our ability to make 
significant progress on improving facility staffing imbalances. 

In fiscal year 1995, $17.5 million was appropriated for Air Traffic PCS. At 
the close of fiscal year 1995, we were able to reprogram additional funds to Air 
Traffic PCS to bring obligations to $39.8 million. These funds were targeted to 
regions and facilities most in need of additional staffing. In particular, over $10.1 
million in PCS went to the Western Pacific Region, that was the region most below 
the staffing standard level. 

It is extremely difficuh to measure the impact of PCS fiands on aviation safety 
However, the FAA used available PCS funds most effectively by filling field office 
aviation safety inspector and supervisory positions, including filling overseas 
positions, and to compensate for some of the work force imbalance in fiscal year 
1995 This did not affect aviation safety, and we were able to address the most 
critical work force imbalances. The FAA will continue to redeploy the work force 
based on imbalances indicated by our current staffing standards and the availability of 
funding to support these critical requirements. 

Question. Please list the amount of permanent change of station fijnding 
requested for fiscal year 1997, and that provided in appropriations for fiscal years 
1993 through 1996, in each of the accounts and or programs/projects or activities. 

Answer. Information follows. 



207 



m" Hi 



i §3-'^' 



8SS SS 

<0 (M St- 



sr^ 



<A o T- in o 
CO S S 



^g 



?i::R 



8|}2«S 



||5 



oi o> «o 






O c 

5 i*^ ^ S 
O < a c 

^;$ §9. 



5 


§1° 


§S 


ir 


*" 




1^ 


ir 


«» 




|K 


i.r 



o> <n T- o 



is: 



<0 Ol 0> lO o 

S SS'- 



» O O N M <0 

S S rt w N 



CO r~ oH^ 



Ss^"! 



Si = °i 



9 "V^ O lO 



;?§ 



lA a> a> o o o 

O CM <0 CO 

n r> CO 



s ass««=> 



CO Q r> O <M u> 
a> ^ a> o MO 
<D T- r» o> CO 



«o ^ p> «o o 



si 



r» r> o 
S? 



h> CM O W) 

CO r) bo 



CD CM on^ 

CM (O Ho) 
h> CO Uu> 

« 5 



I ill 

> c o. 2 «i p 

«t: 8 



ll 



|3|li^illll| 

ozSu._i >u.<<q:s 



o a < 



►- a -o 
S2 c < 

Q X O 



(0 CO 



Question. Please list the number of moves, the number of personnel moved, 
and the amount of money spent on those moves for each of the fiscal years 1993 
through 1995 and estimated for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. 

Answer. The number of moves and the amount of money spent on those 
moves is listed below. FAA does not track the number of personnel included on each 
move. 



209 



ill 
ill 

m 

z & • 

2 « ? 

lis 
s°i 



I Si 



It 



o n ^ o 



5°5- *» 



o o n m o 



S *» ? "• ° 



9 §5S°3 

35 §»""' 



S§°2 s? 



♦ mo 



S8° 8 



S " ° ;: 



a? ° 



11 


39.763 
214 

12.061 

851 




52.889 

3.166 

1.360 

219 

58 

20 


^1 


g-gfjo 


1 SS" — 


11 


$14,093 
59 

6.409 

1.904 




22,465 

3,061 

690 

71 

20 

5 



ss^ sa 



5» 



S$ 



m n T- 1- 



»^ <» S 2 
w an 



S ss°°s 



s? 



?!^SS 



8»- » <o •- 



I s ^ 

I 111 i 

«n .9 r o o- o z 

ii^ni g s| 3§ ii si 




210 



Question. How many personnel and how many moves are assumed in the 
fiscal year 1997 budget request? What particular types of personnel and in what 
regions are the moves anticipated? 

Answer. The agency projects 611 moves in fiscal year 1997. We do not 
project the number of people associated with each move, thus allowing us to 
determine the total number of people to be moved. FAA moves people to cover 
critical managerial and safety related vacancies throughout the country. Very few 
moves are provided to locations outside of the continental United States. 

Question. How have the personnel reforms included in the fiscal year 1996 
appropriations bill affected this program? 

Answer. Personnel reform, implemented April 1, had no immediate affect on 
this program. A team is currently working to identify PCS or temporary duty 
initiatives. 

FAA'S PROJECTED FUNDING SHORTFALL 

Question. Last fall, FAA estimated that its requirements ($59.3 billion) will 
exceed available Rinding ($47.2 billion) by $12.1 billion between 1997 and 2002 as a 
result of the Joint Budget Resolution. Included in its $59.3 billion requirements 
estimate was an outlay projection for fiscal year 1997 totaling $8 9 billion. As part of 
the department's budget submission, you now estimate that outlays for fiscal year 
1997 will total $8.4 billion This reduction has the effect of reducing the gap by $500 
million. The President's budget sets targets for out year funding authority during 
fiscal years 1998-2002 that are fairly close to those numbers that FAA estimated it 
would receive under the Joint Budget Resolution. Could you provide a listing of the 
actions (such as program changes, user fee increases, and operational efficiencies) you 
plan to recommend or take to achieve the overall spending targets contained in the 
President's budget? 

Answer The outyear funding level presented in the President's budget reflects 
a government-wide spending target that is necessary to stay within the Budget 
Enforcement Act discretionary spending caps. This is consistent with the policy of 
achieving a balanced budget by 2002. There has been no determination of what 
specific spending choices would be made by the FAA to meet this target beyond what 
is specifically requested for fiscal year 1997. We have looked at some options we 
might have to consider in the years ahead if our spending requests were at these 
reduced levels. These would likely include major staffing reductions, closure of 
facilities, cancellation of procurements, and, perhaps, elimination of programs. At this 
time in our planning process, however, the targets represent gross, or macro, planning 
levels, and we have not determined specific actions that we would take beyond fiscal 
year 1997. As future Presidential budget requests are formulated, there will be some 
choices and decisions made on specific areas of spending. 

AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND 

Question The authority to collect several taxes in the aviation area, most 
notably the 10 percent ticket tax, lapsed on December 31, 1995. Under your current 
projections, is there a chance that the aviation trust fund would reach a zero balance? 
If so, what is the approximate date? 



211 



Answer. If the aviation taxes are not reinstated, and no new user fees are 
imposed to cover FAA expenses, the aviation trust fund will inevitably reach a zero 
uncommitted balance. Current projections place the date in January 1997 At that 
point, while a cash balance will exist, it will be needed to liquidate obligations which 
have already occurred. The FAA will no longer be able to incur new obligations from 
the trust fund. 

Question. If the Airport and Airway Trust flind was off-budget, how would 
FAA finance its programs with a zero trust fund balance? 

Answer. The FAA is currently proposing a limited set of cost based fees to 
collect $150 million. However, this is insufficient to finance the FAA's proposed 
budget of $8 2 billion. The remainder of the budget will either have to be financed 
from the general fund or new authority provided for the FAA to institute a 
comprehensive set of user fees. 

Question. If the Appropriations Committee proceeded in the normal fashion 
and fijnded one-half of FAA's operations, the facilities and equipment (F&E) account, 
the airport construction account, and the Essential Air Services program only from the 
Airport and Airway Trust Fund without a general flmd subsidy, what provisions has 
the Department made to run these programs if there is little or no money in the 
aviation trust fund? 

Answer FAA has made no provisions to run these programs if there are no 
flinds in the aviation trust fund. Our budget request assumes that the aviation taxes 
will be reenacted by August 1996, and that fiands will be available in the aviation trust 
fund to run these programs. 

FUEL TAX EXEMPTION 

Question. Presently, the airline industry pays 4.3 cents per gallon of an 
aviation fijel tax that goes for deficit reduction. What is the Administration's position 
regarding whether or not there should be an exemption for the industry from paying 
this tax? 

Answer. Although the 4.3 cents per gallon tax on all transportation fuels was 
enacted in August 1993, the commercial airlines were exempted until October 1, 
1995, to give the airline industry time to recover from some of its financial losses. 
Repeal of the tax would result in a revenue loss to the Treasury, and therefore would 
require a mandatory offset of $400 to $500 million in fiscal year 1996 spending, rising 
in 1 997 and beyond based on economic assumptions. 

Question. How much does this aviation fijel tax generate on an annual basis? 
Answer The 4.3 cents will generate $400 to $500 million revenue to the 
General fund of the Treasury in fiscal year 1996. 

Question. Please provide the Committee, on a quarterly basis, the cost of 
aviation fuel, starting with the peak year 1990. 
Answer. Information follows. 



212 



FUEL EXPENSE, FUEL CONSUMPTION, UNIT FUEL PRICES AND 

PERCENT CHANGE OVER A YEAR AGO IN UNIT FUEL PRICES 

DOMESTIC, INTERNATIONAL, AND TOTAL SYSTEM 

PASSENGER, ALL-CARGO AND TOTAL MAJORS 

QUARTERS ENDED MARCH 1990 THRU MARCH 1996 



DOMESTIC 





FUEL 


TOTAL 


UNIT 




QUARTER 


EXPENSE 


GALLONS 


PRICE 


PERCENT 


ENPeO 


(SMillions) 


(Millions) 


(Cents) 


CHANGE 


TOTAL 9003 


1.949.7 


2.735.8 


7127 




PASSENGER 9006 


1.632.9 


2,783.5 


58.66 




MAJORS 9009 


2.021 3 


2.876.5 


7027 




9012 


2.850.6 


2,7238 


104 66 




9103 


1.879.1 


2.501.3 


75 12 


541% 


9106 


1.563.8 


2.607.9 


59 96 


2.22% 


9109 


1.548.6 


2.4660 


62.80 


-10.63% 


9112 


1.708.7 


2.579.1 


66.25 


-36.70% 


9203 


1.450 


2.555.5 


56.74 


-24.47% 


9206 


1.576.5 


2.6053 


60.51 


0.91% 


9209 


1.783.8 


2.769.7 


64.40 


256% 


9212 


1.657.3 


2,627.4 


63 08 


-4 79% 


9303 


1.5118 


2,5450 


59.41 


4.70% 


9306 


1.553.6 


2.6345 


58.97 


-2.55% 


9309 


1.509.3 


2.727 1 


55.34 


-14.07% 


9312 


1.487 2 


2.596.1 


57.29 


-8.37% 


9403 


1.344.7 


2.5316 


53.12 


-10.59% 


9406 


1.330 4 


2,6388 


5042 


-14 50% 


9409 


1.467 9 


2,7528 


53 32 


-3.65% 


9412 


1.479.1 


2.701.1 


54.76 


-4.42% 


9503 


1.350.6 


2.6104 


51 74 


-2.60% 


9506 


1 .391 9 


2.6583 


5236 


385% 


9509 


1.435.1 


2.636.1 


54 44 


2 10% 


9512 


1.482.9 


2.650.9 


55 94 


2.15% 


9603 


1.530.6 


2.544.8 


6015 


16 25% 


TOTAL 9003 


58.0 


85.9 


67 52 




ALL-CARGO 9006 


499 


845 


59.05 




MAJORS 9009 


615 


895 


68.72 


- 


9012 


97.4 


95.9 


101.56 




9103 


57.4 


75.4 


76.13 


12.75% 


9106 


46.1 


754 


61.14 


353% 


9109 


492 


77.4 


63.57 


-7.49% 


9112 


59.7 


883 


67.61 


-33 43% 


9203 


51.7 


846 


61 11 


-19.73% 


9206 


534 


86.3 


61.88 


1.20% 


9209 


57.0 


901 


63.26 


-0.48% 


9212 


62.7 


99.3 


63.14 


-6.61% 


9303 


96.1 


1519 


63.23 


3.46% 


9306 


96.8 


153.5 


6307 


192% 


9309 


94.5 


159.5 


5924 


-6 36% 


9312 


111.0 


178 


6235 


-1.26% 


9403 


99.6 


170.1 


58.55 


•7.40% 


9406 


99.5 


176.1 


5652 


-10.39% 


9409 


104.3 


180.6 


57 73 


-2.55% 


9412 


123.2 


2064 


59 73 


-4.20% 


9503 


106.3 


189.3 


56.15 


-4.10% 


9506 


109.8 


190.0 


57.78 


2.24% 


9509 


108.0 


190.2 


56 80 


-1.61% 


9512 


131.8 


211 1 


62.45 


4.57% 


9603 


103.4 


171.2 


60.40 


7.57% 


TOTAL 9003 


2.007.7 


2.821 7 


71 IS 


20.11% 


ALL MAJORS 9006 


1.682.8 


2.868 


58 68 


-589% 


9009 


2.0828 


2.9660 


70 22 


19.94% 


9012 


2.9480 


2,8197 


104 55 


84.99% 


9103 


1.936.5 


2.576.7 


75 15 


5.62% 


9106 


1.609 9 


2.683 3 


60 00 


2.25% 



213 





FUEL 


TOTAL 


UNIT 




QUARTER 


EXPENSE 


GALLONS 


PRICE 


PERCENT 


ENDED 


($Millionsl 


(Millions) 


(Cents) 


CHANQ5 


9109 


1.597.8 


2,543.4 


62.82 


-10.54% 


9112 


1 ,768.4 


2.6674 


66.30 


-36.59% ■ 


9203 


1.501.7 


2.6401 


56 88 


-24.32% 


9206 


1.629.9 


2,691.6 


60 56 


0.93% 


9209 


1.840 8 


2,859 8 


6437 


2.46% 


9212 


1.720.0 


2,7267 


63.08 


-4.85% 


9303 


1.607.9 


2,6969 


59 62 


4.82% 


9306 


1.650 4 


2,788.0 


59 20 


-2.24% 


9309 


1.603.8 


2,8866 


55.56 


-13.69% 


9312 


1.598.2 


2,774 1 


57.61 


-8.67% 


9403 


1.444.3 


2,701.7 


53 46 


-10.33% 


9406 


1.429.9 


2,814.9 


50.80 


-14.19% 


9409 


1.572.1 


2.933.4 


53 59 


-3.54% 


9412 


1.602.4 


2.9074 


55.11 


^.34% 


9503 


1.456.9 


2.799.7 


52.04 


-2.66% 


9506 


1.501.8 


2.8483 


5272 


3.79% 


9509 


1.543.2 


2.826.2 


54 60 


1.88% 


9512 


1.614.8 


2.862.0 


56.42 


2.37% 


9603 


1.634.0 


2.716.0 


60.16 


15.62% 



INTERNATIONAL 





FUEL 


TOTAL 


UNIT 




QUARTER 


EXPENSE 


GALLONS 


PRICE 


PERCENT 


gNPgP. 






(Cents) 


CHANGE 


TOTAL 9003 


5455 


7380 


73 92 




PASSENGER 9006 


5133 


8154 


62.95 




MAJORS 9009 


697.5 


941.8 


74.06 




9012 


1.007.7 


8376 


12031 




9103 


6337 


7016 


9032 


22.20% 


9106 


5466 


7990 


68.41 


8.67% 


9109 


605.7 


8852 


68.43 


-7 61% 


9112 


5936 


8072 


73.54 


-38.88% 


9203 


5165 


797.6 


64.76 


-28.30% 


9206 


5847 


890.4 


65 67 


-4.01% 


9209 


703.7 


9927 


70.89 


3.60% 


9212 


618.2 


8752 


70.64 


-3 95% 


9303 


579.4 


855.4 


67.73 


459% 


9306 


5997 


9057 


66 22 


0.84% 


9309 


612.6 


9855 


62.16 


-12 32% 


9312 


561.8 


8624 


65 13 


-7.79% 


9403 


5038 


830.9 


60.64 


-10.48% 


9406 


520.1 


8962 


5803 


-12 36% 


9409 


574.0 


974.9 


58 88 


-528% 


9412 


541.4 


882.0 


61.39 


-5.75% 


9503 


486.6 


837.6 


58.10 


-4.19% 


9506 


539.2 


905.3 


59.56 


2.63% 


9509 


584.2 


982.7 


59.45 


0.98% 


9512 


549.5 


8930 


6154 


0.24% 


9603 


549.7 


827.2 


66.45 


14 38% 


TOTAL 9003 


42.5 


58.0 


73.28 


. . 


ALL-CARGO 9006 


38.8 


49.9 


77.76 


. 


MAJORS 9009 


47.4 


615 


77.07 


. 


9012 


81.8 


97.4 


83.98 


- 


9103 


69.3 


698 


99.28 


35.49% 


9106 


47.0 


65.0 


7231 


-7.01% 


9109 


41.8 


584 


71.58 


-7.13% 


9112 


44.6 


604 


73 84 


-12.08% 


9203 


35.2 


51.7 


68 09 


-31.42% 


9206 


33.1 


503 


65.81 


-8.99% 


9209 


34.5 


49.7 


69.42 


-3.02% 


9212 


36.5 


515 


70.87 


-4.02% 


9303 


35.9 


53.2 


67.53 


-0.81% 


9306 


34.6 


52.0 


66 50 


1.06% 



214 



INTERNATIONAL 





FUEL 


TOTAL 


UNIT 




QUARTER 


EXPENSE 


GALLONS 


PRICE 


PERCENT 


ENDED 


(?Milliora} 


(Millions) 


(pent?) 


CHANGE 


9309 


33.9 


51.5 


65.84 


-5.15% 


9312 


35.6 


54.8 


64.94 


-8.37% 


9403 


31.8 


51.5 


61.86 


-8.40% 


9406 


339 


554 


61.21 


-7.95% 


9409 


38.0 


62.3 


61.04 


-7.29% 


9412 


42.5 


66.5 


63.93 


-1.56% 


9503 


40.2 


65.6 


61.31 


-0.89% 


9506 


41.5 


66.7 


62.21 


1.63% 


9509 


42.6 


702 


60.63 


-0.67% 


9512 


47.1 


71.0 


66.27 


3.65% 


9603 


40.7 


60.5 


67.27 


9.72% 


TOTAL 9003 


588.0 


7960 


73 87 


. 


ALL MAJORS 9006 


552.1 


865.3 


63.80 


. 


9009 


7449 


1.003 3 


74 24 




9012 


1.0895 


935.0 


116.52 


. 


9103 


703.0 


771.4 


91.13 


23.37% 


9106 


593.6 


864.0 


68.70 


7.68% 


9109 


647.5 


943.6 


68.62 


-7.58% 


9112 


638.2 


867.6 


73.56 


-36.87% 


9203 


551.7 


849.3 


64 96 


-28.72% 


9206 


617.8 


940.7 


65.67 


-4.41% 


9209 


738.2 


1,042.4 


70.82 


3.20% 


9212 


654.7 


926.7 


70.65 


-3.96% 


9303 


6153 


9086 


67.72 


425% 


9306 


634.3 


9576 


66 23 


0.85% 


9309 


646.5 


1 ,037.0 


62.34 


-11.97% 


9312 


597.4 


917.3 


65.12 


-7.82% 


9403 


535.6 


882.3 


60.71 


-10.36% 


9406 


554.0 


9516 


58.22 


-12.10% 


9409 


612 


1,037.2 


59.01 


-5.35% 


9412 


584.0 


9485 


6157 


-5 46% 


9503 


526.9 


903.3 


58.33 


-3.91% 


9506 


580.7 


972.0 


59.74 


262% 


9509 


626.8 


1,052.9 


59 53 


0.89% 


9512 


596.6 


964.0 


61.89 


0.52% 


9603 


590.4 


887.7 
SYSTEM 


66.51 


14.02% 




FUEL 


TOTAL 


UNIT 




QUARTER 


EXPENSE 


GALLONS 


PRICE 


PERCENT 


ENDED 


^Millions} 


(Millions) 


(Cents) 


CHANGE 


TOTAL 9003 


2.495.2 


3.4738 


71 83 




PASSENGER 9006 


2,1462 


3,5989 


59 63 




MAJORS 9009 


2,7188 


3.818.3 


71.20 




9012 


3.858.3 


3.561 4 


108 34 




9103 


2,512.8 


3,202.9 


7845 


9.22% 


9106 


2.110.4 


3,406.9 


6194 


3.87% 


9109 


2.154.3 


3.351.2 


64.28 


-9.72% 


9112 


2.302.3 


3.3863 


67 99 


-37.24% 


9203 


1.966.5 


3.353.1 


58 65 


-25.25% 


9206 


2.161 2 


3.495.7 


61.82 


-0.19% 


9209 


2;487.5 


3.7624 


66.11 


2.85% 


9212 


2.275.5 


3.502.6 


64.97 


-4.45% 


9303 


2.091.2 


3,400.4 


61.50 


486% 


9306 


2,153.3 


3.540.1 


60.83 


-1.62% 


9309 


2.121.9 


3,712.6 


57.15 


-13.56% 


9312 


2.0489 


3.458.5 


5924 


-8.81% 


9403 


1.848 5 


3.362.5 


54 97 


-10.61% 


9406 


1.850.5 


3.535.0 


52.35 


-13.94% 


9409 


2.041.8 


3.727.7 


54.77 


-4.16% 


9412 


2.020.6 


3.583.0 


56.39 


-4.81% 


9503 


1.837.2 


3.448.1 


53 28 


-3.08% 


9506 


1,931.1 


3.563.5 


5419 


3.52% 



215 







SYSTEM 








FUEL 


TOTAL 


UNIT 




QUARTER 


EXPENSE 


GALLONS 


PRICE 


PERCENT 


^NPEP 


(SMIIIions) 


(Millions) 


(Cents) 


CHANCe 


9509 


2.0194 


3.6188 


55.80 


1.88% 


9512 


2.0324 


3.5438 


57.35 


1.70% 


9603 


2,080.3 


3,372.0 


61.69 


15.78% 


TOTAL 9003 


100.5 


143.9 


69.84 


. 


ALL-CARGO 9006 


88,7 


134.4 


66.00 


. 


MAJORS 9009 


108.9 


151.0 


72.12 


. 


9012 


179 2 


193.3 


9271 




9103 


126.7 


145.2 


87.26 


2494% 


9106 


93.1 


140 4 


66.31 


0.48% 


9109 


91.0 


135.8 


67.01 


-7.08% 


9112 


104.3 


148.7 


70.14 


-24.34% 


9203 


86.9 


136.3 


6376 


-26.93% 


9206 


86.5 


136.6 


63.32 


-4.50% 


9209 


91.5 


139.8 


65.45 


-2.33% 


9212 


99.2 


150.8 


65.78 


-6.21% 


9303 


132.0 


205.1 


64 34 


0.92% 


9306 


131.4 


205.5 


63.94 


0.97% 


9309 


128.4 


211.0 


60 85 


-7.03% 


9312 


146.6 


232.8 


62.96 


-4.29% 


9403 


131.4 


2216 


59.32 


-7.81% 


9406 


133.4 


231.5 


57.64 


-9.85% 


9400 


142.3 


242.9 


58.58 


-3.74% 


9412 


165.8 


272.9 


60.75 


-3.50% 


9503 


146.5 


2549 


57.48 


-3.10% 


9506 


151.3 


256.8 


58 94 


2.25% 


9509 


150.6 


260.4 


57.83 


-1.27% 


9512 


178.9 


282.1 


63.41 


4.38% 


9603 


1441 


231.7 


62.19 


8.20% 


TOTAL 9003 


2.595.7 


3,617.7 


71 75 




ALL MAJORS 9006 


2,2349 


3.733.3 


59 86 




9009 


2,827.7 


3,9693 


71 24 


. 


9012 


4.0375 


3.754.7 


107.53 




9103 


2.6395 


3.348 1 


78 84 


9.88% 


9106 


2,203.5 


3,547.3 


62 12 


376% 


9109 


2.2453 


3,487.0 


64.39 


-9 61% 


9112 


2.4066 


3.5350 


6808 


-36 69% 


9203 


2,053.4 


3.4894 


58 85 


-25.36% 


9206 


2.2477 


3.632 3 


61.88 


-0.38% 


9209 


2,5790 


3.9022 


66 09 


2.64% 


9212 


2,3747 


3,6534 


65 00 


-4 52% 


9303 


2,2232 


3.605 5 


61 66 


4.78% 


9306 


2,2847 


3.7456 


61.00 


-143% 


9309 


2.2502 


3.9236 


57.35 


-13 22% 


9312 


2.195.5 


3.6914 


59 48 


-8.50% 


9403 


1,979.9 


3.5840 


55.24 


-10.41% 


9406 


1.983.9 


3,766.5 


52.67 


-13.64% 


9409 


2.184.1 


3,970.6 


55.01 


-4.09% 


9412 


2.186.3 


3,855.9 


56 70 


-4 67% 


9503 


1.983.8 


3,7030 


53.57 


-3.03% 


9506 


2,082.4 


3,8203 


54.51 


3.49% 


9509 


2.170.0 


3,879.2 


55 94 


1.69% 


9512 


2.211.3 


3,825.9 


57.80 


1.94% 


9603 


2.224.4 


3.603.7 


61.73 


15.22% 



SOURCE : DOT T-100 and T-IOO(r) data. 



216 



GOAL OF ZERO AVIATION ACCIDENTS 

Question. In DOT's fiscal year 1997 Budget in Brief, it was stated that, as a 
result of the January 1995 Aviation Safety Conference, FAA, together with industry, 
has produced a Safety Action Plan detailing 173 initiatives to improve aviation safety, 
and that more than 70 percent have been implemented already. Briefly summarize the 
actions that have been taken to address the key recommendations raised at the 
conference and to develop and implement the 1 73 initiatives? 

Answer. There were 173 initiatives identified in the 1995 Safety Action Plan. 
Of these, 91 were targeted for completion by the end of fiscal year 1995. 
Approximately 75 percent were completed and the remainder were either deleted or 
modified and moved to fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1999. A few significant 
accomplishments include; 

- Issued a comprehensive Runway Incursion Plan 

- Developed Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requiring scheduled commuter 
air carriers operating with nine or more seats to conform to the same level 
of safety required of major carriers. 

- Inaugurated operation of National Airspace Data Interchange Network, a 
high speed data communications system that enhances the controller's 
ability to pass information to pilots. 

The FAA, industry, and labor reviewed the 173 safety initiatives from the 1995 
Safety Action Plan at the Initiatives Review Conference in December 1995. Together, 
they determined which items were completed, which would be deleted and which 
required modification The 1996 version of the safety plan outlines the status on the 
1 73 safety initiatives. 

Question. What safety areas do these initiatives fall in? Are there areas where 
FAA and industry are having problems in implementing the initiatives? If so, what are 
they? 

Answer. These initiatives came under six broad areas of safety operations: 
Crew Training, Air Traffic Control and Weather, Safety Data Collection and Use, 
Application of Emerging Technology, Aircraft Maintenance Procedures and 
Inspections, and Flight Operations Procedures. 

All of the 1995 (91) initiatives were either implemented, deleted, or modified 
to make them more appropriate to current conditions. Deletions were primarily due 
to redundancy or a determination that the issue was outside the scope of the goal. 
Modifications, such as changes in dates and content, were sometimes caused by 
factors outside the control of the FAA and industry. For instance, reductions in 
research, engineering and development (R,E&D) funding has slowed the completion 
of some research initiatives and led to revisions in the content of others. 

FAA, industry, and labor have worked cooperatively to implement as many 
initiatives as possible and to make decisions on the disposition of those initiatives not 
completed. All 173 initiatives were reviewed and accounted for at the December 
1995 Initiatives Review Conference. 

Question. Is there a schedule for implementing these initiatives? Is so, are 
FAA's and industry's actions on schedule to implement all the initiatives? If not, 
which initiatives have slipped and to what extent? 



217 



Answer, Approximately 25 percent of the 91 fiscal year 1995 initiatives were 
not completed. At the December 1995 conference, these remaining items were either 
deleted, modified to change content, or modified to indicate a more realistic 
completion date. Industry and the FAA are on schedule to meet these new 
completion dates. A steering committee, comprised of industry, labor and the FAA, 
will be monitoring and tracking actions on the fiscal year 1 996 safety initiatives to 
ensure their completion. 

Question. When will all the initiatives be implemented? 

Answer. The original Safety Action Plan identified 173 initiatives slated for 
completion through the year 1999. Each year FAA, industry, and labor will review 
actions taken on the safety initiatives and determine the status; which are completed, 
which need additional time for completion, and which are no longer relevant. The 
first review of initiatives was conducted at the Safety Initiative Review Conference in 
December 1995. All of the original initiatives were reviewed and a decision made to 
delete, to consider completed, or to modify (change content or completion date). 

The 1996 version of the Safety Action Plan, developed as a result of the 
December 1 995 conference, lists the disposition of all original initiatives and includes 
some new initiatives recommended by the working groups of FAA, industry, and 
labor. Some of the original initiatives were revised slightly and new completion dates 
were recommended. Others were changed more significantly, and no new completion 
date has been established. A steering committee chaired by industry, and comprised 
of industry, labor, and the FAA will meet and establish completion dates for all 
initiatives. 

The FAA expects that some of the original initiatives may be modified at 
fiiture review conferences as changes in technology, industry priorities, and fijnding 
dictate, making it difficult to say when they will be truly "completed". The FAA 
envisions an annual review and identification of safety initiatives thereby creating a 
continuing emphasis on important safety issues. 

Question What role has the new FAA System Safety Office played in 
achieving the "zero accidents" goal? 

Answer. The Office of System Safety has developed a concept called the 
Global Analysis and Information Network (GAIN). This concept would establish an 
early warning system to identify existing and emerging safety concerns that would 
move the aviation industry towards zero accidents. 

Improved cooperation between airline management, labor and various 
government, advancements in information technologies, and the political environment 
in several countries, have provided the international aviation industry an 
unprecedented opportunity to share and analyze aviation safety information. 

Comments on the GAIN concept and implementation strategy for collecting 
and analyzing aviation safety data are being solicited and participation in the 
development of proof-of-concept prototypes has been requested. 

HUMAN FACTORS 

Question. To achieve your goal of "zero-accidents" in commercial aviation, 
FAA recognized the need to reduce the number of human errors committed by 
aviation personnel. Several joint FAA/industry initiatives designed to accomplished 



218 



this were scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1995. These included (1) the 
establishment of a national data base for aviation human factors research, (2) 
strengthening ties with DOD and DOT to leverage the transfer and coordination of 
human factors technology, and (3) the publication of design specifications for 
incorporating human factors considerations into future systems such as air traffic 
controller work stations and control centers. Have these initiatives been completed on 
schedule? 

Answer. (1) The establishment of a national data base and (2) strengthening 
ties with DOD and DOT have been completed on schedule. (3) The publication of 
design specifications was delayed due to evaluation and comments from industry and 
government and is now at the publisher. 

Question. What other initiatives involving human factors consideration have 
been scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1996? 

Answer. To help achieve our goal of "zero-accidents" in commercial aviation 
through the reduction of aviation personnel errors, the following initiatives have been 
scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1996: (1) Complete initial advanced digital 
recording system (automated performance measurement system - APMS) with two 
U.S. air carriers; (2) develop a model advanced qualification training program 
(advanced qualification program - AQP) for regional air carriers; and (3) implement 
and evaluate human factors and ergonomics program in aircrafl maintenance shops. 

Question. What steps has FAA taken to ensure that human factors are 
considered throughout the agency's operations? 

Answer. Progress in this area is marked by the development and promulgation 
of a Human Factors Policy Order (9550.8) calling for the incorporation of human 
factors considerations in all agency activities. The Congressionally mandated 
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee has been examining 
human factors across the FAA Human factors continues to be an important 
consideration in the new acquisition process being implemented under the Acquisition 
Reform A National Plan for Civil Aviation Human Factors, which establishes the 
necessary elements to ensure human factors research, is fijlly considered in the 
planning. Execution of research projects has been published and plans are underway 
to strengthen the human factors support infrastructure. 

FAA CULTURE 

Question, The General Accounting Office (GAO) has been studying the role 
that organizational culture has played in the FAA's problem in modernizing the air 
traffic control system. GAO's preliminary findings indicate shortcomings in four 
areas: mission focus, accountability, coordination, and adaptability. FAA has initiated 
an integrated product development system with the stated purposes of changing the 
agency's culture and improving the agency's acquisition management. What are your 
thoughts on how FAA's culture may have contributed to the agency's difficulties in 
acquiring air traffic control equipment? 

Answer. Much of the long-standing problem in development of new systems 
is related to the way the FAA historically has done major systems procurement. 
Traditionally, acquisitions have been geared toward a major systems acquisition 
approach, based on 15-20 year technology life cycles prevalent in the 1960's and 



219 



1970's Today, with computer technology life-cycle down to two to three years, the 
agency has implemented a new acquisitions management system to cut delivery time in 
half and at reduced cost. The new acquisition management system complements the 
Integrated Product Team (IPT) concept in the sense that it emphasizes empowering 
employees and placing decision-making and accountability at the lowest levels 
Customers are also now involved in the IPT process to help define requirements and 
work hand and glove with FAA throughout the development and implementation 
phase to make sure things stay on track. In the past, significant amounts of time and 
money were wasted in major system acquisitions by not having FAA customers, 
operators, and maintainers sitting down at the same table Too often, this ended up in 
what is called a "requirements churn," whereby changes were constantly being 
inserted into the development process. This had the effect of delaying programs 
interminably and driving the costs through the roof 

In addition, the FAA is getting away from the costly and time-consuming 
systems development approach, and from a mentality that says if the FAA doesn't 
design it and develop it from scratch down to every minute detail, it won't serve its 
purposes Instead, the FAA is moving towards COTS/NDI acquisitions—shorthand 
for "commercial off-the-shelf, non-developmental items"-whenever possible and 
adapting equipment and systems to meet unique FAA operational requirements, as 
needed. 

Changing the acquisitions culture involves a major paradigm shift that will take 
three to five years to accomplish. The FAA has taken initial action to shift from a 
risk-averse system heavily dependent on regulations and complicated processes to an 
open system with far fewer regulations that puts a premium on technical competence, 
judgment, creativity, and initiative. The new acquisition management system, for 
example, is a 100-page document that replaces a myriad of documents some seven 
feet high. 

The FAA is now developing a program to hire, train, and retain individuals 
who can work in that culture, who can work effectively as part of teams, who can 
operate with general guidelines where reason and common sense are more important 
than the ability to follow the rulebook, and who have the specialized education and 
training to deal with some of the most sophisticated communications, navigation, and 
surveillance systems in the world. 

Question. Please describe the integrated product development system and any 
other initiatives currently underway or planned to change the agency's culture 

Answer. The implementation of Integrated Product Development System 
(IPDS), by its very nature, requires the cross functional application of resources in a 
partnership fashion The IPDS consists of a "teams leading teams" approach to doing 
business. This, in and of itself, forces changes in the way the agency does business by 
cutting across rigid functional domains, i.e., "stovepipes," as reflected in the current 
organizational structure. The entire "teams leading teams" infrastructure of the IPDS 
engages this cross functional partnership at every level of the agency. Additionally, 
the IPDS embodies team-based empowerment and collaborative decision making at 
the lowest practical levels of the team infrastructure This fosters further culture 
change in that managers at upper levels of the agency must now redirect their efforts 
to coaching, mentoring and supporting the teams in accomplishing the agency's 
mission, instead of focusing on their functional agendas. Overall, the IPDS places an 
emphasis on life cycle approach to acquisition with a focus on the ultimate customer. 



220 

This also contributes to moving the agency's culture away from a strong functional 
focus to a commonly held mission focus. 

FAA RESPONSIVENESS TO NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS 

Question. After investigating aviation accidents or doing special studies, the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) makes recommendations to the FAA 
to improve safety. NTSB highlights safety issues needing priority attention through 
its publication "Most Wanted Transportation Safety Improvements". What numerical 
percentage of NTSB's aviation safety recommendations made in the last 5 years (by 
year) did FAA agree to implement? 

Answer. The NTSB has issued 3,294 safety recommendations to the FAA 
since 1966 Of this total, the Board classified the FAA's action as acceptable in 84 
percent of the recommendations. Since 1991, the NTSB has issued 689 safety 
recommendations to the FAA. A breakdown of the recommendations by year shows 
that the FAA continued to maintain a high implementation rate for the 
recommendations. Following is the breakdown by year and the percentage of 
recommendations that the NTSB classified as acceptable: 
NTSB Recommendations Classified as Acceptable 

Year Recommendations Percentage 

1991 113 90.5 

1992 126 82.2 

1993 136 87.8 

1994 188 84.5 

1995 126 100 * 

* The NTSB has taken final action on only a small number of 1995 

recommendations, so this data is incomplete. 

Question. What is the status of FAA's actions on NTSB's 1991 
recommendation to expedite the development and implementation of the Airport 
Movement Area Safety System (AMASS) which is on NTSB's most wanted list? 
How does your current schedule for installing AMASS at airports identified to receive 
them compare to the schedule you had a last year's hearings? Please provide the 
original schedule with airports listed and the updated list. 

Answer. A pre-production AMASS system is installed at San Francisco 
International Airport for air controller's operational evaluation. Negotiations were 
completed in May 1996 for procurement of three (3) additional systems (first article) 
for testing at Detroit, St. Louis, and Atlanta. A new contract for seven (7) low rate 
initial production systems with options for the remaining production systems is 
planned for contract award in January 1997. At this time last year, first delivery was 
estimated to be April 1997. A currently planned AMASS delivery schedule is shown 
below. 

AMASS Delivery Schedule 
Location Current Delivery Date 

San Francisco CA January 1996 

Detroit MI May 1997 

St Louis MO July 1997 

Atlanta GA September 1997 



221 



Dallas/Ft. Worth TX 
Boston MA 
FAA Academy OK 
FAA Technical Center NJ 
Los Angeles #2 CA 
Los Angeles #1 CA 
Chicago IL 

Washington National DC 
Portland OR 
JFK NY 
Seattle WA 
Philadelphia PA 
Pittsburgh PA 
La Guardia NY 
Miami FL 
Kansas City MO 
Cleveland IL 
Denver #1 CO 
Denver #2 CO 
Houston #1 TX 
Houston #2 TX 
Minneapolis MN 
Anchorage AK 
Memphis TN 
Baltimore MD 
Chantilly VA 
New Orleans LA 
Newark NJ 
Raleigh-Durham NC 
Charlotte NC 
Orange County CA 
Covington KY 
Orlando FL 
San Diego CA 
Andrews MD 
Las Vegas NV 



February 1998 
March 1998 
March 1998 
May 1998 
May 1998 
June 1998 
June 1998 
April 1999 
April 1999 
May 1999 
May 1999 
June 1999 
June 1999 
July 1999 
July 1999 
August 1999 
August 1999 
September 1999 
September 1999 
October 1999 
October 1999 
November 1999 
November 1999 
December 1999 
December 1999 
January 2000 
January 2000 
February 2000 
February 2000 
March 2000 
March 2000 
April 2000 
April 2000 
May 2000 
May 2000 
May 2000 



AIRPORT REVENUE DIVERSION 



Question. Please update the Committee on the Administration's latest position 
on airport revenue diversion. Is it true that, following reports by the Inspector 
General, the Administration has decided to tighten up and increase enforcement in 
these areas? If so what is the Administration planning to do? 

Answer. The Administration's position is unchanged on revenue diversion— 
the agency expects airport sponsors who have received grants to adhere to the legal 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 47107(b), and the FAA's committed to making sure these 
sponsors fulfill their legal obligations in this regard. The Office of the Inspector 
General (OIG) has been very helpful in identifying sponsors who appear to have 
diverted revenue. 



At times, there may be a disagreement over the amounts diverted In these 
instances, the FAA allows the sponsor to submit any documentation that supports 
their claims. When the FAA determines that revenue has been diverted, the approach 
is to notify the sponsor and have them credit the diverted amounts to the airport 
account This approach is consistent with the direction that Congress provided in 
their enactment of 49 U.S. C. 471 11 (e) to allow the airport sponsor the opportunity to 
correct the violation before enforcement action is taken. 

To date, in all cases where the FAA has determined that revenue has been 
diverted, the sponsor has taken advantage of this opportunity. If a sponsor refused to 
correct the violation, the agency would not hesitate to use the enforcement available, 
which could include the refusal to approve any new grant applications or, 
modifications to existing grants that would increase the funds, or denial of a new 
application to impose passenger facility charges. The FAA would also consider 
pursuing judicial enforcement action against the sponsor in accordance with 49 U.S C. 
47111(e). 

The FAA also published a notice in the Federal Register, on February 26, 
1996, of a proposed statement of policy and enforcement procedures concerning the 
use of airport revenue. The agency believes this statement of policy will assist 
sponsors in determining whether the contemplated use of airport revenue is proper. 
The notice also describes the actions FAA will take if the agency finds that revenue 
was diverted. In addition, we have developed and placed the requirement in all fiscal 
year 1995 grants for sponsors to submit the two financial reports provided for in 49 
U.S.C 47107(a)(19) These reports will assist the FAA, as well as airport users, in 
identifying situations where the sponsor may have diverted revenue 

Finally, Congress approved FAA's fiscal year 1996 request to hire up to five 
more people to work on matters concerning revenue diversion and related areas. 
FAA expects to hire these additional people in the near future. 

Taken together, FAA believes that all these measures will help prevent the 
diversion of revenue, while providing for quick action to correct the violation when a 
diversion is identified 

PROPOSED USER FEES 

Question. FAA performs many services to ensure that the nation's air 
transportation system is safe. However, FAA currently charges little or nothing for 
many of the services In January 1996, GAO reported that FAA charges nothing for 
certification of new airline operations although a large amount of staff time may be 
spent on applicants that have little probability of successfully completing FAA's 
certification process and beginning new operations. The report fijrther stated that 
FAA plans to examine all of its services requiring certificates and the existing fee 
structures to determine the extent to which the government's costs have been or 
should be recouped. 

In the budget, the Administration offset the request for FAA operations with 
$150 million in aviation-related user fees (i.e., overflight fees, obstruction fees, 
security fees). Exactly what user fees do you have in mind, and how much would 
each user fee generate'' 

Answer. The FAA has proposed three fees to fund FAA operations in fiscal 
year 1997. These are: $25 to $35 million in overflight fees, $10 to $13 million in 
obstruction notification fees, and $88 to $1 10 in security fees. 



Question. There is a question as to whether the Appropriations Committee 
has the jurisdiction to grant FAA the authority to impose additional user fees. What 
discussions has the Department had with either the authorizing committees or the 
finance committees regarding these fees? What has been their reaction to date? 

Answer. Staff fi'om the House authorizing committee met with representatives 
from the FAA to obtain information on a possible fee for air traffic services provided 
to carriers overflying U.S airspace But the information that the FAA was able to 
provide was limited, because the agency was still analyzing all fees including an 
overflight fee, and had not yet decided which specific fees would be proposed to 
collect $150 million in offsetting collections in fiscal year 1997. The House staff 
asked to be provided information on overflights and cost allocation when it becomes 
available 

Question. If the language requested by the Administration is included in the 
appropriations bill, do you predict that there will be opposition by the other 
committees of jurisdiction? If so, what arguments would you present to overcome 
this opposition? 

Answer. FAA would anticipate that there may be opposition from authorizing 
committees. We would hope that other committees of jurisdiction would recognize 
and appreciate the need to provide adequate funding for FAA's Operations 
Appropriation, in view of constraints on discretionary spending, and concur in the 
recommended course of action 

Question Given your budget request for additional user fees, is it fair to say 
that the administration supports the McCain bill? 

Answer. Yes, FAA does support S. 1239, the McCain, Ford, Hollings bill. 

Question. In order to assess user fees on a fair basis, FAA needs to accurately 
determine the cost of providing service. What progress have you made on the "cost" 
issue? 

Answer. FAA is currently conducting a comprehensive cost allocation study 
to determine cost responsibility. One of the outcomes of this study will be the 
estimation of unit costs for specific FAA products. This information can be used to 
derive a set of comprehensive cost-based user fees. FAA is also exploring the 
establishment of a cost accounting system to provide a continuing source of 
information to monitor and revise user fees as appropriate in the fijture. 

Question. In addition to the fees requested in the appropriations language, 
have you made sufficient progress in determining what other fees might be assessed or 
increased, or what existing fees could be reduced or eliminated? 

Answer. FAA is currently studying the concept of self-financing through 
comprehensive user fees While no decisions have yet been made, it is anticipated that 
if additional fees are proposed, they will be designed to recover the costs of FAA 
services. The McCain-Ford bill anticipates elimination of the current trust fund taxes, 
if new user fees are accepted by Congress. 

Question. What are the different types of services for which FAA could, but 
does not charge user fees? What are the government's costs for performing these 
services? 



224 



Answer. Title 31, U.S.C; Money and Finance; Chapter 97, Miscellaneous; 
Section 9701, "Fees and Charges for Government Services and Other Things of 
Value," provides general authority to all federal agencies to establish fees for a service 
or thing of value provided by an agency. Under this authority, the FAA can charge 
for any services or products that it provides to identifiable recipients who receive 
special benefits beyond those received by the general public. This includes services 
relating to air traffic control and aviation security. 

However, the FAA is limited by statute with respect Xo fees for an approval, 
test, authorization, certificate, permit, registration, transfer, or rating related to 
aviation Title 49 US C. Chapter 453 places a limitation to such fees that were in 
effect on January 1, 1973, and permits their adjustment based on increases in the 
Consumer Price Index Fees in effect on January 1, 1973 include initial aircraft 
registration certificate fees, fees for special registration numbers, and fees for dealers' 
aircraft certificates In addition, certain new fees were established with limits imposed 
on the maxima that could be charged (e.g., $12 fee for issuing airman certificates to 
pilots). Finally, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 453 allowed the Administrator to establish and 
collect fees to recover the costs for providing and carrying out any test, authorization, 
certificate, permit, rating, evaluation, approval, inspection, or review that is outside 
the United States 

To help determine FAA's costs for providing services to users, a new cost 
allocation study is underway. 

Question. What is the status of FAA's efforts to examine the potential for 
charging fees for these services? 

Answer. The FAA is currently proposing a limited set of cost-based fees to 
collect $150 million. We also have in progress a comprehensive cost allocation study 
which will determine the costs of producing specific FAA products and services. 
Upon completion, expected summer of 1996, this study will provide a basis for 
proposing a general set of user fees to recover FAA's costs. 

Question. It has been suggested that the overflight fee might need 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) permission. Is this true? And if so, 
how soon could these fees be implemented? 

Answer No, ICAO does not need to approve the overflight fee. 

Question. If the Appropriations Committee were not allowed to include the 
$150 million in additional user fees, what suggestions do you have as to where we 
might find the additional funding to cover your FAA operations request? 

Answer To our knowledge, there are three options for funding the FAA: 
user fees. General fijnd, or Airport and Airway Trust fiind. If the $150 million in 
additional user fees is disallowed, funds would have to come from the General fiind or 
trust fund. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD'S "MOST WANTED" LIST 

Question. Several transportation safety improvements recommended by 
NTSB are under the purview of the FAA, including flight data recorder, flight data 
expanded parameter recorder, airport runway incursion, wake turbulence, Mode-C 
intruder conflict alert in terminal areas, and pilot background checks. Please update 



225 



the Committee on what FAA is doing in each of these areas to respond to the NTSB's 
recommendations. Please inform the Committee if FAA does not agree with NTSB 
recommendations, or if there is a difference of opinion regarding the magnitude of the 
problem as identified by NTSB. 

Answer. The FAA is addressing five specific aviation safety issues that are 
included in the NTSB's "Most Wanted" list. Each of the safety issues includes 
specific safety recommendations that were previously sent to the FAA for action. The 
following is a summary of each issue and the FAA actions to address the safety 
concerns: 

Pilot Background Checks The FAA agrees that a comprehensive, 
standardized system is necessary to record airman records to properly assess pilot 
performance In December 1995, the FAA issued a final rule, which will require all 
airlines operating aircraft with 1 seats or more to meet the highest requirements for 
checking the training and qualification for airmen. The FAA is working with 
Congress on legislative action to require appropriate information about prospective 
employees be provided by previous employers. The one area of disagreement is, the 
FAA does not believe that it should create a governmental fianction to store and 
retrieve individual pilot records for access by prospective employers. This access 
should be done on a company-to-company basis. 

Wake Vortex Turbulence. The FAA is implementing the NTSB's 
recommendations assigned to the wake vortex issue. We are finalizing the new 
airplane weight clarifications and have completed several initiatives to clarify pilot and 
controller operational procedures for Boeing 757 and other heavier aircraft. These 
operational procedures assist in providing additional guidance with respect to wake 
vortex hazards in the terminal area. 

Mode-C Intruder The FAA has installed the Mode-C Intruder conflict alert 
logic at 56 of the 62 Automated Radar Terminal Systems (ARTS) III A facilities. The 
remaining six will be completed by September 1996. The FAA is continuing work on 
the 132 ARTS IIA facilities that will be equipped with the Mode-C Intruder program. 

Runway Incursion Program. The FAA continues to place a high priority on 
runway incursion issues. The Administrator has recently revised the agency Runway 
Incursion Program and assigned the program a higher priority among other safety 
initiatives The FAA initiatives include substantial progress in the installation of 
ASDE-3 airport surface detection radar systems and the development of new 
specifications for reflectorized paint for runway markings. The FAA has work 
underway to examine aircraft lighting procedures and requirements as well as 
initiatives to improve pilot training programs with respect to airport surface 
operations 

Expanded Flight Data Recorder (FDR) Parameters. The FAA agrees that 
Boeing 737 airplanes that operate under 14 €ode of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 
121 or 125 should be equipped with FDRs that include an appropriate number of 
parameters. The FAA has a rulemaking initiative in progress which will require all 
Boeing 737 airplanes, as well as certain other airplanes operated under 14 CFR Parts 
121, 125, or 135 (10 seats or more), be equipped with expanded parameter FDRs 

However, the FAA did not agree that all Boeing 737 aircraft should be 
retrofitted with the expanded FDR systems by December 31, 1995. The date 
proposed by the NTSB imposed an extremely aggressive schedule which, if it was 
physically possible, would have resulted in substantial airplane groundings and high 
associated costs. 



PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES 

Question. What is the amount of funding that has been redistributed in the 
airports grant program because of passenger facility charges (PFC's) collections by 
the various airports, starting with the first year the program was in existence, and 
estimated for fiscal years 1996 and 1997? 

Answer. The first fijnds redistributed within the airport grant program due to 
PFC collections at large and medium hub airports occurred in fiscal year 1993. In 
fiscal year 1993, $57.33 million was redistributed; in fiscal year 1994, $105.93 
million, in fiscal year 1995, $100.62 million. For fiscal year 1996, $1 16.37 million has 
been redistributed within the airport grant program. The FAA currently estimates that 
$123 million will be redistributed within the grant program in fiscal year 1997 based 
on the current PFC approvals and the fiscal year 1 996 apportionment levels. 

Question. Despite the passage of legislation which permitted the collection of 
PFCs, investment firms still have reservations about the investment grade of PFC 
debt Moody's has stated that they still have concern over the use of PFCs as a 
security for long-term debt, given the FAA's ability to terminate an airport's ability to 
collect PFC revenues Please explain the administration's position regarding this 
ability to terminate PFCs Why does the Administration think it is necessary to retain 
this authority? Should modifications or changes be made to current law? Does the 
Administration think that removal or modification of this authority would enhance 
airports' ability to credibly finance their long-term debt with the backing of the PFC 
revenue stream? 

Answer The FAA does not believe that legislative action relating to the use 
of PFC revenue in support of debt financing is warranted at this time. This is because 
of recent advances made through an FAA initiative to improve the creditworthiness of 
PFC stand-alone financing The FAA has developed a protracted informal resolution 
process to correct public agency violations of the PFC statute and regulation when 
PFC-backed bonds are to be used in financing PFC projects. The City of Little Rock, 
Arkansas recently requested that the FAA include this language in its Record of 
Decision to facilitate stand-alone PFC bonds. As a result of FAA's inclusion of this 
language, the bonds were rated by two rating agencies and insured by a bond insurer. 
FAA is aware of other public agencies in the process of developing applications that 
intend to request the protracted informal resolution process to aid in PFC-backed 
bond issues. 

Because of this progress and the increased understanding of the PFC program 
by the financial community, the FAA believes that the acceptance of PFC stand-alone 
bonds is increasingly likely on a broader scale Moody's has even changed its position 
from not considering rating PFC stand-alone bonds to examining proposals on a 
case-by-case basis. The FAA does not support legislation that would hamper its 
ability to prescribe corrections to violations of the PFC statute and regulation for the 
sake of improving the marketability of PFC stand-alone bonds by limiting or removing 
the FAA's ability to terminate PFC collections for cause. It is not clear that removing 
or modifying the FAA's authority to terminate PFC collections for cause, other than 
the steps that the FAA has taken within its existing authority, would greatly enhance 
PFC stand-alone financing by itself 



227 



VOLUNTARY SEPARATION OF EMPLOYEES 

Question. The Committee is concerned by the Office of the Inspector General 
(OIG) reports that many FAA employees who participated in the voluntary separation 
program have come back to work on agency projects as independent contractors or 
subcontractors. How many FAA employees participated in the voluntary separation 
program in fiscal years 1994, 1995 and 1996? 

Answer The FAA had 2,593 employees participate in the voluntary 
separation program in fiscal year 1994. For fiscal year 1995, there were 390 
participants, and during the first quarter of fiscal year 1996, there were 54 
participants. 

Question. How many of these employees did return as independent 
contractors or subcontractors to work on agency projects? Please express the total 
number of employees who returned as contract employees as a percentage of the total 
FAA employees who participated in the voluntary separation program? 

Answer. Approximately 10 percent of the FAA personnel who participated in 
the voluntary separation program during fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996 have been 
identified as working for contractors in support of the agency. 

Question. Please provide the names of FAA employees at GM-13 or above 
(and comparable controller rating) who participated in the voluntary separation 
program, then returned as contract employees, from fiscal year 1994 to present. 

Answer The FAA has undertaken steps to identify all former FAA employees 
who participated in the voluntary separation incentive program and have returned as 
contract employees. FAA has not completed the identification of these former 
employees who have returned as contract employees. However, all names thus far 
have been furnished to the OIG. We are prepared to conduct investigations of the 
individuals identified thus far and are working with the OIG to complete the 
framework of the investigation plan. The identification of the individual former 
employees at this time may have a negative impact on the investigation. We will 
contact the OIG for its position on the matter. Should the OIG have no objection, we 
will provide the names under separate cover. 

FAA TRAINING: CENTER FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT (CMD) 

Question. FAA maintains two training facilities, the FAA Academy in 
Oklahoma City and the CMD in Palm Coast, Florida. Since fiscal year 1993, FAA's 
budget for technical training at the academy has dropped 42 percent, from about $137 
million to about $74 million in fiscal year 1996, while CMD's budget has decreased by 
a more modest 9 percent from around $11 million to just under $10 million per year. 
In view of the overall budgetary situation, can FAA continue to afford separate 
training facilities at Oklahoma City and Palm Coast, Florida? 

Answer. FAA policy supports the development of managers, supervisors and 
teams who will forward the agency's agenda for safety, efficiency and reform. OIG 
and GAO audits in the FAA, agency self-studies, and benchmarking studies have 
consistently called for improved management of agency fijnds, planning and 
forecasting strategies, and execution of financial and technical oversight functions. At 
the same time, these bodies have noted that agency training for these functions has 



228 



been inadequate. The management training budget has remained level for seven years, 
yet has provided training adapted to the changing management requirements of the 
agency In addition, we have provided an increased number of courses to an 
increasing number of students even with decreases in the training budget. It is 
notable, then, that there have been no increases in the management training budget to 
meet new demands and reform deadlines, to support the National Performance 
Review (NPR) and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) initiatives, 
or to respond to the recommendations and requirements of the various audits and 
studies. In fiscal year 1995 funding levels limited the Center to providing 58 percent 
of the training actually requested by the FAA lines of business. 

The agency commissioned a study to determine whether co-location of 
the CMD with the Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City would be cost-beneficial. 
The study concluded that relocation was not a cost-effective or warrantable option for 
the agency. The reasons for this recommendation included items such as untenable 
timetables for the terminations of existing contracts and the costs of negotiated 
terminations, construction or adaptation costs for facilities in Oklahoma, and transfer, 
availability and retention scenarios for comparable personnel, as well as the impacts of 
a relocation on local economics and demographics. The GAO has cited the only 
projected estimated savings of $500,000 per year over a period of 1 years which 
formed one of the findings of the agency study. GAO did not cite the qualifying 
criteria under which those savings might or might not be realized, nor did GAO cite 
any of the related circumstances or findings of the study 

Question. A study completed by an FAA contractor last year shows significant 
possible savings from consolidating FAA's management and technical training at the 
FAA Academy in Oklahoma City instead of maintaining two separate facilities 
Specifically, the study estimated that FAA could save between $3 4 million and $6.3 
million over a 10-year period by transferring the CMD functions to the FAA 
Academy In view of the results of this study and the expiration of the 10-year lease 
at the CMD facility in August 1997, is this an appropriate time to consolidate the 
training functions at Oklahoma City? 

Answer. No, FAA does not believe consolidation of the training functions 
would benefit the agency. 

IMPACT OF DECREASED FUNDING FOR TECHNICAL TRAINING 

Question. Since fiscal year 1993, FAA's budget for technical training has 
dropped 42 percent, from about $127 million to about $74 million in fiscal year 1996. 
Are there specific examples of essential technical training that will not be provided in 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 because of budgetary constraints? 

Answer. The decline in the technical training budget has severely limited 
development and delivery of training other than training categorized as essential and 
safety related. For example, training not funded due to budget constraints includes 
non-critical new equipment training for maintenance technicians (in addition to 
training on older equipment), attrition training for the maintenance work force, 
proficiency and currency training for certification, inspection and surveillance 
personnel, screener effectiveness training for security personnel, and some aspects of 
highly desirable training for air traffic control specialists. 



229 

Question. What potential impacts could such reductions have on aviation 
safety? 

Answer. Reductions in training could have an impact on aviation safety if the 
recent trend to reduce the level of training is not abated. To live within budgetary 
constraints, we have reduced costs and managed training more efficiently. 
Unfortunately, we have been "cutting into bone" for several years Without necessary 
training, we should expect to see a degradation in employees' ability to adequately 
perform their jobs, ultimately impacting aviation safety 

TARGETING OF INSPECTOR RESOURCES 

Question Since 1991, FAA has been working to develop its Safety 
Performance Analysis System (SPAS) to target resources for aviation inspections. 
However, problems with the quality of the source data jeopardize the potential 
benefits of the SPAS system FAA has hired a contractor to develop a strategy to 
improve the quality of the data, but it has not yet been approved or adopted by FAA 
What is the status of FAA's comprehensive data quality improvement strategy for 
SPAS source databases? 

Answer SPAS analysts have been addressing data in terms of accuracy, 
currency, completeness, and consistency. SPAS does not use any data elements 
currently that do not conform to its expectations. The FAA Flight Standards Service 
has agreed that there is a need for an overall data quality improvement strategy that 
addresses the underlying databases that SPAS accesses as do other users. That 
strategy has been initiated by Sandia National Laboratories and is being updated by 
the Flight Standards Service. The draft strategy will be released internally in May 
1996, ultimately to be forwarded to the General Accounting Office for review. Within 
this strategy, the Flight Standards Service will subject numerous current data quality 
initiatives to a vigorous data quality improvement methodology. Many of these 
initiatives directly aftect SPAS source databases. 

Question How many FAA field offices currently have the SPAS system in 
place and operational? 

Answer. The SPAS I Operational Test version of the system is currently being 
tested with 180 users located at 45 Flight Standards District Offices, including 21 
Certificate Management Offices. It is also installed in 9 regional offices, FAA 
Headquarters, the William J Hughes Technical Center, the Department of Defense, 
and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. This implementation covers 
the principal inspectors of the operators that carry 95 percent of the public flying on 
scheduled flights 

Question SPAS requires a 486 or Pentium computer and uses Windows 95 
software To what extent have logistical problems in installing the computer hardware 
and software needed to run SPAS affected FAA's plan to have SPAS operational at 
33 locations by the end of 1995? 

Answer. Any logistical problems or computer hardware/software problems 
that were encountered did not preclude the successful installation of SPAS at more 
than 33 locations for 180 users during 1995 



230 



Question. When does FAA expect to complete deployment of SPAS to all 
remaining locations nationwide? 

Answer. The fully-enhanced SPAS II version will begin to be deployed to all 
aviation safety inspectors, supervisors, analysts, and managers (about 3,000 users) in 
September 1997. Deployment will continue into 1998 and be completed in 1999. 

Question. What provisions has FAA made to provide needed training in the 
use of SPAS to FAA staff? 

Answer. To ensure that SPAS I Operational Test version users are prepared 
to maximize SPAS I capabilities, an integrated training package was developed 
introducing the functions of the software as well as its application. SPAS I users 
attended a 28 hour course of training at the Transportation System Center prior to the 
installation of the SPAS I software 

Training will be developed and initiated for the SPAS II Fully Operational 
Version of SPAS. This training will be delivered to the entire Flight Standards 
inspector workforce. 

CONTRACTING OUT LEVEL 1 TOWERS 

Question. FAA originally planned to contract out the operation of about 100 
additional Level I air traffic control towers by the end of fiscal year 1997. FAA 
estimated that the contracting out of these towers would eventually save about $12 
million to $15 million per year after an initial transition period. What is the status of 
FAA's efforts to contract out the Level I towers? By year, provide the 
names/locations of those towers contracted out to date, and those planned for the rest 
of fiscal year 1996 and for 1997. 

Answer. The plan to convert FAA Level I visual flight rules towers to 
contract operation is on schedule. Twenty-five towers were contracted out in fiscal 
year 1994 (see Attachment A). Twenty-five additional towers were contracted out in 
fiscal year 1995 (see Attachment B). Seven towers were added to the Federal 
Contract tower (FCT) Program in fiscal year 1996 (see Attachment C) Twenty-six 
Level I towers (Attachment D) will be converted to FCT's during August 1996. 
(Alexander Hamilton, Virgin Islands, was added to the list due to rising operating 
costs) 

Thirty-seven remaining Level I towers will be contracted in fiscal years 1997 
and 1 998 (Attachment E). The specific locations for each fiscal year will be identified 
before the end of this calendar year. Anoka, Minnesota, will be contracted in fiscal 
year 1 996 or 1 997, after tower construction is completed. 

Attachment A 
Towers Contracted In Fiscal Year 1 994 
Groton/New London, CT 
Hartford-Brainard, CT; 
Tweed-New Haven, CT 
Barnes Municipal, MA 

Washington County Regional (Hagerstown), MD 
Charlottesville-Albemarle, VA 
Tuscaloosa Municipal, AL 
Texarkana Regional, AR 
Panama City-Bay County, FL 



231 



Alexandria Esler Regional, LA 

Fernando Luis Ribas Dominicci (Isla Grande), PR 

Greenville Downtown, SC 

Brownsville/South Padre Island International, TX 

Stinson Municipal, TX 

St. Louis Regional, IL 

Salina Municipal, KS 

Detroit City, MI 

Cincinnati Municipal (Lunkin),OH 

Palmdale, CA 

Salinas Municipal, CA 

Molokai, HI 

Lewiston-Nez Perce County, ID 

Pocatello Regional, ID 

McNary Field (Salem), OR 

Key Field (Meridian), MS 

(Locations in Ha/ics are run by the Air National Guard) 
Attachment B 
Towers Contracted In Fiscal Year 1 995 

Barnstable Municipal-Boardman (Hyannis), MA 

Worcester Municipal, MA 
Niagara Falls International, NY 

Lynchburg Regional, VA 
Morgantown Municipal, WV 
Albert Whitted, FL 
Gainesville Regional, FL 
Key West International, FL 
Hawkins Field, MS 

Kinston Regional Jetport (Stallings), NC 
Wiley Post, OK 
Easterwood Field, TX 
Miller International, TX 
Redbird, TX 

Johnson County Executive, KS 
King Salmon, AK 
Modesto City-County, CA 
Oxnard, CA 

San Luis Obispo County, CA 
Santa Maria Public, CA 
Lihue. HI 

Portland-Troutdale, OR 
William J. Fox (Lancaster), CA 
Glendale Municipal, AZ 
Klamath Falls International (Kingsley), OR 
(Locations in italics are run by the Air National Guard) 
Attachment C 
Towers Contracted In Fiscal Year 1 996 
Williamsport-Lycoming County, PA 
Greenville Municipal, MS 



232 



Joplin Regional, MO 






Central Nebraska Regional, NE 




Lake Tahoe, CA 






Olympia, WA 






Walla Walla Regiona 


l,WA 




Rosecrans Memorial, MO 




(Locations in italics are being run by the Air National Guard) 






Attachment D 




Level I's To Be Contracted In Fiscal Year 1996 


SlM£ Facility (Location) 


FAA Region 


Alaska 


Bethel 


Alaskan 


Arkansas 


Fayetteville 


Southwest 


Arizona 


Goodyear 


West. -Pacific 


California 


FuUerton 


West.-Pacific 


California 


Hawthorne 


West.-Pacific 


California 


San Carlos 


West.-Pacific 


California 


Sacremento Executive 


West.-Pacific 


Florida 


Jacksonville/ Craig 


Southern 


Florida 


Page Field 


Southern 


Georgia 


Fulton County 


Southern 


Georgia 


SW Georgia (Albany-Dougherty) 


Southern 


Idaho 




NW Mountain 


Illinois 


Decatur 


Great Lakes 


niinois 


Southern Illinois (Carbondale) 


Great Lakes 


Illinois 


Merrill C. Meigs 


Great Lakes 


Kansas 


Hutchinson Muni. 


Central 


New Mexico 


Sante Fe County Muni. 


Southwest 


New York 


Oneida County 


Eastern 


South Dakota 


Rapid City Reg. 


Great Lakes 


Texas 


Tyler 


Southwest 


Utah 


Ogden-Hinckley Muni. 


NW Mountain 


Virgin Islands 


*Alexander Hamilton 


Southern 


Wisconsin 


Lawrence J. Timmerman 


Great Lakes 


Wisconsin 


Rock County 


Great Lakes 


Wisconsin 


Wittman Regional 


Great Lakes 


Wyoming 


Cheyenne 


NW Mountain 


Note: 25 Identified by FCT Ad-Hoc Commitee 




1 * Identified by AAT 




26 Total 


Attachment E 




Remaining Level I 


's To Be Contracted In Fiscal Year 1997 And Fiscal Year 1998 




FAA Region 


Alabama 


Dothan 


Southern 


Alaska 


Kenai Muni. 


Alaskan 


Alaska 


Kodiak 


Alaskan 


California 


Chico Muni. 


West.-Pacific 


California 


Redding Muni. 


West.-Pacific 


Colorado 


Grand Junction 


NW Mountain 


Connecticut 


Igor I. Sikorsky Mem. 


New England 



Hawaii Keahole West.-Pacific 

Illinois Bloomington/Nomial Great Lakes 

Iowa Dubuque Reg. Central 

Kansas Forbes Field Central 

Kentucky Louisville Southern 

Louisiana Houma-Terrebonne Southwest 

Massachusetts Beverly Muni. New England 

Massachusetts Lawrence Muni. New England 

Massachusetts Nantucket Mem. New England 

Massachusetts New Bedford Muni. New England 

Massachusetts Norwood Mem. New England 

Michigan Jackson County Great Lakes 

Michigan W. C. Kellogg (Battle Creek) Great Lakes 

Missouri Columbia Central 

Montana Missoula NW Mountain 

New Hampshire Lebanon Muni. New England 

New York Tompkins County Eastern 

North Carolina Smith Reynolds Southern 

North Dakota Minot International Great Lakes 

Ohio Burke Lakefront Great Lakes 

Oklahoma Lawton Muni. Southwest 

Oregon Medford NW Mountain 

Pennslyvania Capital City Eastern 

Texas Fort Worth Alliance Southwest 

Texas Mathis Field (San Angelo) Southwest 

Texas Rio Grande Valley (Harlington) Southwest 

Washington Felts Field NW Mountain 

Washington Yakima NW Mountain 

West Virginia Wood County Eastern 

Wisconsin La Crosse Muni. Great Lakes 
The number of FAA Level I visual flight rules (VFR) towers will fluctuate as Level I 
locations are upgraded to Level II status (when aircraft activity increases) or Level II 
towers are downgraded to Level I status (when aircraft activity decreases). 



Question. To date, what costs savings has FAA actually realized by contracting 
out of these towers? For each fiscal year, provide the cost of the contracting out and the 
savings realized. 

Answer. The FAA is acting to convert all FAA Level I VPTl towers that meet 
benefit/cost criteria for continued operations as an FAA Contract Tower (FCT) to 
contract operation. The FAA expects to reassign those affected controllers who are 
currently assigned at Level I towers to higher level facilities and provide PCS moves 
utilizing F&E funding. 

The FCT Program saves an average of $200,000 in operating costs at each 
location converted to contract operations. However, the program must recoup the cost 
of PCS moves for the FAA controllers being reassigned. Even so, the program realized 
overall savings of $800,000 during fiscal year 1995 and is projected to save $5.78 million 
during fiscal year 1996. 
The following chart shows the projected cost savings of the FCT program: 



a- >. 



O ffi 
55 22 

o > 

G^ 
3 S 

QQ 

:s 

Z 



30.6M 
(4.2M) 


1 


$27.54M 
(S6.141M) 


^ 


$21.165M 
(S5.85M) 


1 


$14.28M 
($8.5M) 




i2 S 





M 






3 


i 






g 


> 






^ 


< 






J 


VI 






^ 








u 




O 




> 




Z 




O 




> 


O 






Ik 


z 








Q 






2 








u 


U 






1 


Ou 






Q 


^ 






Ed 


w 






t3 


^ 














3 


u 






« 


tc 






CL 


cu 





235 



Question. What oversight does FAA provide over the contracted-out towers'!* 
How have these towers fared in FAA's periodic evaluations in comparison with FAA 
operated towers? 

Answer The FCT program office is responsible for the oversight of 
contracted-out towers. This oversight includes the administration of contracts, the 
timely assistance and technical guidance to contractor personnel, coordinating of 
issues including documents, directives, regulations, and all changes thereto. Our 
evaluations staff conducts evaluations at FCT locations in the same manner as those 
conducted at other FAA air traffic control facilities. The evaluations staff provides 
the FCT program office with copies of all evaluations conducted at FCT locations. 
The evaluations results are consistent with FAA operated tower results. 

Question. What plans, if any, does FAA have to contract out Level II or other 
additional towers? 

Answer. The FCT program was designed to provide a cost-effective 
alternative for air traffic control services at low activity airports, and was identified in 
Vice President Gore's NPR. This process is scheduled to be complete in fiscal year 
1998. FAA has no plans for contracting beyond this point. 



Question. Beyond fiscal year 1997, how many more Level I towers are 

candidates for contracting out? 

Answer Thirty-seven Level I towers are candidates for contracting out in 

fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. Current plans are for 25 to be contracted in 

fiscal year 1997 and the remainder in fiscal year 1998. The listing follows: 
Remaining Level I's To Be Contracted In Fiscal Year 1997 And Fiscal Year 1998 

State Facility (Location) FAA Region 

Southern 

Alaskan 

Alaskan 

West-Pacific 

West-Pacific 

NW Mountain 

New England 

West-Pacific 

Great Lakes 

Central 

Central 

Southern 

Southwest 

New England 

New England 

New England 

New England 

New England 

Great Lakes 

Great Lakes 

Central 

NW Mountain 

New England 



Alabama 


Dothan 


Alaska 


Kenai Muni. 


Alaska 


Kodiak 


California 


Chico Muni. 


California 


Redding Muni. 


Colorado 


Grand Junction 


Connecticut 


Igor I. Sikorsky Mem. 


Hawaii 


Keahole 


Illinois 


Bloomington/Normal 


Iowa 


Dubuque Reg. 


Kansas 


Forbes Field 


Kentucky 


Louisville 


Louisiana 


Houma-Terrebonne 


Massachusetts 


Beverly Muni. 


Massachusetts 


Lawrence Muni. 


Massachusetts 


Nantucket Mem. 


Massachusetts 


New Bedford Muni. 


Massachusetts 


Norwood Mem. 


Michigan 


Jackson County 


Michigan 


W. C Kellogg (Battle Creek) 


Missouri 


Columbia 


Montana 


Missoula 


New Hampshire 


Lebanon Muni. 



236 



New York 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennslyvania 

Texas 

Texas 

Texas 

Virgin Islands 

Washington 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

The number of FAA 

upgraded to Level II 

downgraded to Level 



Tompkins County 
Smith Reynolds 
Minot International 
Burke Lakefront 
Lawton Muni. 
Med ford 
Capital City 
Fort Worth Alliance 
Mathis Field (San Angelo) 
Rio Grande Valley (Harlington) 
Alexander Hamilton 
Felts Field 
Yakima 
Wood County 
La Crosse Muni 

Level I VFR towers will fluctuate as 
status (when aircraft activity increases) 
I status (when aircraft activity decreases) 



Eastern 

Southern 

Great Lakes 

Great Lakes 

Southwest 

NW Mountain 

Eastern 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southern 

NW Mountain 

NW Mountain 

Eastern 

Great Lakes 
Level I locations are 
or Level II towers are 



SYSTEM SAFETY OFFICE 

Question. The FAA Administrator established the Office of System Safety in 
November 1994. The office reports directly to the Administrator on safety issues. 
What are the staffing and funding levels for this office? Has the office been flilly 
staffed and funded? What are the functions of this office? 

Answer. For fiscal year 1996, the Office of System Safety has a staffing level 
of 37 employees and a funding level of $9. 1 million. Currently, the office has 34 
employees on board. The functions of the office encompass the following: providing 
leadership by monitoring safety trends, identifying emerging aviation safety issues and 
concerns as candidates for integrated analysis or study, serving as an independent 
safety policy advisor, fostering and promoting system safety disciplines in the agency, 
serving as a focal point for aviation safety data and information which includes the 
management of the National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center (NASDAC), and 
initiating innovative aviation safety outreach efforts. Additionally, the Office of 
System Safety serves as the agency's focal point for the development and adoption of 
a cooperative international government/industry aviation safety information exchange 
that will use information from a variety of sources including state-of-the-art systems 
monitoring equipment to identify and share safety issues on a global basis. 



Question. What databases wall this office rely on for gathering data to 
analyze? Are these databases sufficiently reliable? Will this office be gathering safety 
related data on a worldwide basis or just on a domestic basis 

Answer. The Office of System Safety relies on a unique combination of 
governmental (NTSB, Aviation Safety Reporting System and Runway Incursions,) 
and commercial (APT Navigator) databases to perform safety analyses. In addition, 
the Office has purchased the license to a worldwide database maintained by a major 
aviation insurance claims adjuster and has partnered with several foreign authorities to 
jointly develop international safety information systems. In the near fliture the office's 



237 



NASDAC will establish an FAA user committee that will make recommendations 
concerning data bases to be maintained on the system. 

When a database is considered for inclusion in the NASDAC system, it is 
evaluated for reliability and subjected to a number of tests for completeness and 
consistency. A decision is then made as to whether to import the database in whole 
or part. 

Question. Will this office be developing indicators of potential safety issues? 
Please explain how this will be accomplished. 

Answer. The Office of System Safety has program management responsibility 
for the agency's System Indicators Program. The current program, which was 
implemented in fiscal year 1992, consists of 24 systems and 12 environmental 
indicators The system indicators show trends and information about the current 
status of system performance. They are classified as accident indicators, incident 
indicators, efficiency measures, compliance measures, and inspector activity measures. 
The environmental indicators provide broadly based, future-oriented information 
about the environment in which the aviation system operates, and thus illustrate the 
potential demands on the aviation system. They include measures such as forecasts of 
instrument flight rules aircraft handled at en route centers and forecasts of annual 
enplanements. The indicators were developed by an agency-wide task force with 
representatives from all major program areas. The initial set of indicators has been 
modified over time to ensure their continuing adequacy and validity as measures of 
system performance. Movement of the indicators can help FAA management and the 
aviation community focus resources to further investigate underlying factors, and 
thereby maintain and improve the wide margin of safety that the system is designed to 
provide The indicators are updated quarterly and provided to agency and outside 
organizations via electronic media, they were recently included on the Office of 
System Safety's home page on the Internet. An annual report is also prepared and 
distributed to FAA organizations and members of the aviation community. 

Question. What role is this office playing in reaching FAA's zero aviation 
accidents goal? 

Answer. The Office of System Safety has developed a concept called the 
GAIN. This concept would establish an early warning system to identify existing and 
emerging safety concerns that would move the aviation industry towards zero 
accidents. 

Improved cooperation between airline management, labor and various 
government, advancements in information technologies, and the political environment 
in several countries, has provided the international aviation industry an unprecedented 
opportunity to share and analyze aviation safety information. 

Comments on the GAIN concept and implementation strategy for collecting 
and analyzing aviation safety data are being solicited and participation in the 
development of proof-of-concept prototypes has been requested. 

AVIATION SECURITY 

Question Although there is no known specific threat to aviation, experts 
believe that aviation is an increasingly attractive target for terrorists. Over the past 
year, FAA has raised the security at domestic airports several times based on advice 



and input from the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities. Security at 
domestic airports is at its highest level since the Gulf War. What are some of the 
security initiatives - both procedural and technological - that FAA has promulgated 
at domestic airports in the last year? 

Answer In August 1995, U.S. airports and air carriers were directed to 
implement more stringent security measures due to a heightened state of alert for the 
nation's transportation systems. The additional measures were ordered to prevent or 
deter possible criminal or terrorist acts. The FAA Technical Center awarded three 
grants to U.S. airiines to install and demonstrate the first certified Explosives 
Detection System (EDS), the InVision CTX-5000, at airports. These demonstrations 
will provide the airport operational experience and accurate cost data essential for 
fiiture decisions on EDS deployment. The first EDS demonstration site at San 
Francisco International Airport became operational in November 1995. A baseline 
study was completed to evaluate the capability of airport screeners to detect 
improvised explosive devices in passenger carry-on baggage using black/white 
computer based X-ray image presentations The baseline will be used to identify 
performance improvements as new screener training technology and procedures are 
developed. Also, the Unescorted Access Privilege Rule became effective January 31, 
1996 This rule ensures that individuals applying for unescorted access privileges do 
not constitute an unreasonable risk to the security of the aviation system by requiring 
employment investigations including criminal history record checks where 
appropriate. 

Question. The cost of increased security at domestic airports over the past 
year has been borne by the airiines and airports. What is the estimated cost of FAA's 
recent initiatives to increase security at domestic airports? 

Answer. Although US. airiines reported minimal economic impact associated 
with implementing special FAA security contingency requirements last year, airport 
industry trade groups (AAAE & ACI-NA) estimated from a joint survey that the 
airports' costs nationwide of implementation would have been $125 million for an 
entire year The estimated costs were attributed largely to anti-car bomb measures, 
which were in effect for only six weeks (October 4, through November 18, 1995). 

A downward revision of the assessed threat allowed elimination of the more 
onerous measures in November 1995. In January 1996, airports were directed to 
return to the previous high level of security, but without implementing the most costly 
security measures. Consequently, the cost of implementing special security measures, 
at this time, is not significant. The current measures will continue at least through the 
1996 Olympics. 

The FAA is considering permanently increasing security measures for the 
domestic civil aviation system. Most permanent changes to the security baseline 
would involve air carrier rather than airport measures. As FAA considers these 
changes, we are aware of industry concerns about the FAA's use of emergency 
powers and the potential economic dislocation that such changes might precipitate 
unless carefully planned. We will also try to minimize inconvenience to passengers 
and the public while ensuring their safety. 

Question. FAA officials have publically stated that some security measures 
used only in high threat conditions should be part of everyday security. FAA has 



coined this "raising the baseline." Does FAA plan to mandate such changes? If so, 
when? 

Answer As early as 1993, the FBI characterized the international terrorist 
threat in the United States as "both changed and increased." In 1994, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation warned, "Several international terrorist groups continue to 
maintain or increase their presence in the United States. . . . Although an international 
terrorist act in the United States is a rare occurrence, and terrorist groups remain 
reluctant to strike here, their contingency plans for a possible action continue to 
progress The support infrastructures are being upgraded, and group members are 
receiving training overseas. International terrorist group members with paramilitary 
training are known to be residing in the United States." In view of the change in the 
prevailing threat in the United States, the FAA is examining the adequacy of the 
security baseline and will consult will appropriate government and industry 
organizations before legislation or rulemaking is proposed. 

Question To what degree does FAA include airlines and airports in its design 
and development of new security procedures and technologies? 

Answer The Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) serves as an 
advisory body and develops recommendations on methods, equipment, and 
procedures to improve civil aviation security. The committee is composed of airport, 
airline, public interest, and association groups that are involved with aviation. The 
ASAC has provided recommendations to the FAA Administrator on exclusive area 
agreements, contingency plans, bomb threats, crewmember training, criminal 
background checks. Universal Access System, cargo and mail security procedures, 
passenger screening, the Federal Security Manager, the carriage of weapons on board 
aircraft by law enforcement officers, and the ongoing revision of Airport and Air 
Carrier Security Regulations. All recommendations are reviewed by the Administrator 
and forwarded to the Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation Security for. 
consideration in rulemaking and security program amendments. 

Question. In December 1994, FAA certified an explosives detection system 
(EDS) for screening checked baggage. Several airport demonstrations of this 
technology are underway Will FAA mandate the use of the system? If so, when? 

Answer The CTX-5000, manufactured by InVision Technologies of Foster 
City, California, meets all the FAA's detection and false alarm requirements for 
certification, but two of the devices are required to meet throughput requirements. 
CTX-5000 costs approximately $950,000 per device. InVision is the only 
manufacturer that has applied for FAA certification and no other applicants are 
expected within the next year. 

The FAA and U.S. air carriers have only limited airport operational experience 
with explosives detection equipment that can meet the FAA certification criteria. U.S. 
airiines are concerned about costs to purchase and install EDS that could range from 
$400 million to $2 billion, increased operating costs and anticipated flight delays 
Therefore, the FAA is conducting airport demonstrations of certified EDS equipment 
to provide the detailed, real world information on installation, operation, and costs 
needed as the basis for executive level decisions on mandatory deployment These 
one year demonstrations are being conducted by three U.S. airiines under FAA 
cooperative research grants. The first demonstration at San Francisco Airport with 
United Airiines is fijUy operational, the demonstration at Atlanta Airport with Delta 



240 



Air Lines will be operational by June 1, 1996, and, the demonstration at Manila 
Airport, Philippines, with Northwest Airlines will be operational by September 1996. 

In the normal course of events, FAA does not anticipate EDS will be in 
widespread airline use for two to five years, but deployment might be accelerated if 
circumstances dictate. 

Question. Can the security of the flying public be increased without increased 
government funding and without higher excise taxes? 

Answer. Given the on-going finance reform effort and the uncertainties 
surrounding FAA funding at this time, we cannot, with any confidence, accurately 
comment on increased funding or taxes. Security can nonetheless be strengthened 
through efforts to make the application of government resources more efficient and 
effective, and we are doing that. 

For instance, the FAA is implementing a system of focused security 
inspections. Our agents do high quality inspections, fewer in number, but in greater 
depth and detail The results are then used to concentrate subsequent efforts on areas 
that will best improve system performance. We have launched the Airport/Air Carrier 
Information Reporting System (AAIRS) and completed agent training in its use. As 
the improved methodology and reporting system are applied to all components of the 
aviation security system, we expect efficiency and effectiveness to increase. 

Question. In 1994, the GAO noted that FAA lacked an effective way to target 
its security inspector work force to the most important problems. What steps has 
FAA taken to revamp its inspection process and target its work force? 

Answer. The FAA has acknowledged shortcomings to the "checklist" 
approach to airport and air carrier inspections used by inspectors at the time of the 
1994 GAO audit. The FAA also recognized that a short-hand inspection and 
reporting format was not effective in capturing details of non-compliance or in 
grasping important underlying causative factors. Therefore, in fiscal year 1994, FAA 
Security revamped its inspection and reporting system and built a dynamic automation 
system to support it. 

The revised inspection process now employs comprehensive narrative reports 
used with standardized operating terms, definitions, and inspector guidance. 

The revised security inspection program relies heavily upon focused 
inspections, where our agents conduct fewer inspections, in greater depth, detail and 
quality. With improvements in standardization and guidance, there is now a more 
consistent review of assessment findings. The review lead to concentrated efforts on 
areas that will best improve security system effectiveness. 

Another important element of our revised inspection program is the use of 
strictly controlled unannounced system tests of airport and air carrier performance in 
which the FAA agents are not identified as such. These tests provide a realistic view 
of industry compliance with regulatory requirements. Such tests are administered in 
accordance with a well-defined set of protocols, known only to the FAA security 
work force. 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER'S PAY 

Question. Please briefly describe for the Committee all the special pay 
incentives for which controllers can qualify — that is, premium pay and differentials. 



241 



Have any of these been changed because of the implementation of personnel reforms 
on April 1, 1996? 

Answer Premium pay categories that may be paid to controllers are: 
Sunday pay (25 percent) paid for hours of work on Sunday 
Night differential (10 percent) paid for hours of work between 6 p.m. and 6 am 
Hazardous duty pay (up to 25 percent) for all hours in a shift during which the work 
involves exposure to hazards, physical hardships, or working conditions of an unusual 
nature. 

Air Traffic Revitalization Act provisions: 

- Operational responsibility differential (5 percent) paid for all hours in a pay 
status to controllers and airway facilities technicians involved in direct 
operation of the air traffic system, to flight test pilots, and to certain Academy 
instructors. 

- Currency differential (1.6 percent) paid to for all hours in a pay status for non- 
operational controllers who maintain currency in controlling traffic. 

- Missed meal break premium (50 percent of pay for one half hour) paid to 
controllers required to work during the fourth to sixth hours of their shift 
without an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break. 

- On-the-job premium (10 percent) paid to nonsupervisory controllers for hours 
in which they provide on-the-job training to developmental controllers 

Until April 14, 1996, we were obliged to pay the differentials regardless of the 
individuals' pay status. For instance, if an employee was scheduled to work a night 
shift but changed to another shift after the beginning of the work week, the law 
required that the employee receive the night pay. As another example, eligible 
employees received the 5 percent operational responsibility differential for all work 
hours, regardless of whether they are working or on leave. 

Under FAA Personnel Reform, we have adopted rules that prohibit payment of 
Sunday pay and night differential unless the employee actually works the time for 
which the premium pay is paid. Once the necessary changes are made to our 
automated payroll system, employees will no longer receive Sunday pay or night 
differential for time in a leave status or for a scheduled shift which the employee does 
not actually work. 

Question There has been considerable discussion as to whether or not FAA 
has budgeted sufficient overtime pay for air traffic controllers, maintenance 
technicians, and inspectors. Please provide the committee fiscal years 1994, 1995, 
estimated 1996 and budgeted 1997 overtime hours and dollars for those positions, by 
hours and dollars. 

Answer. Overtime hours and dollars for air traffic controllers, maintenance 
technicians, and inspectors follow: 

Overtime Hours and Dollars 





Air Traffic 


Maintenance 






Controllers 


Technicians 


Inspectors 


Fiscal Year 1994 








Hours 


211,332 


154,460 


6,897 


Dollars (thousands) 


$7,555 


$5,303 


$156 


Fiscal Year 1995 








Hours 


264,160 


161,307 


7,130 


Dollors (thousands) 


$9,765 


$5,433 


$164 



242 



Fiscal Year 1996 








Hours 


279,927 


143,721 


8,417 


Dollars (thousands) 


$10,644 


$4,937 


$202 


Fiscal Year 1997 








Hours 


271,655 


125,576 


8,417 


Dollars (thousands) 


$10,644 
FREE FLIGHT 


$4,443 


$208 



Question. Administrator Hinson announced that free flight will be the 
agency's next major initiative for shaping the national air space system. According to 
the FAA time frame, ten years will elapse before free flight is fully implemented. 
What limitations prevent FAA from universally implementing this initiative in the 
national airspace system? 

Answer. The universal implementation is a benefits driven, phased approach, 
dependent on three things, funding, technological development, and user equipage. 
The estimate by FAA for implementation reflects schedules for technology programs 
that have been adjusted to support free flight within existing resource constraints. 
Adjustments have been made in fiscal year 1996 and will be made in fiscal year 1997 
to align program plans with priorities being identified by the Government/industry free 
flight steering committee. The estimate also reflects a protracted resource schedule to 
meet out-year budget projections for full implementation of the free flight enabling 
technologies These technologies include global positioning system, traffic alert and 
collision avoidance system, automatic dependent surveillance (broadcast), the 
aeronautical telecommunications network with data link, and traffic flow management. 
Additional research, development and engineering of the fi-ee flight concepts for 
dynamic density and dynamic resectorization are necessary and not currently fijnded. 
These two concepts will form the basis for controller workload management and user 
access to the system. Finally, the estimate reflects expectations of user equipage for 
these technologies. The FAA's plan to encourage the aviation community to jointly 
design and implement free flight will allow the users to: (1) more fully appreciate the 
benefits, (2) help establish the timing of FAA capital investments, (3) align with user 
plans for equipage, and (4) participate in development of accompanying procedural 
changes This will lead to more coordinated infrastructure changes and equipage by 
the users to realize the benefits of free flight. 

Question. How does the implementation of this major new initiative impact 
the need, schedule, and cost of the various on-going and planned FAA Capital 
Investment Plan projects? 

Answer. Schedules for technology programs have been modified, where 
possible, within existing resource constraints. Adjustments have been made in fiscal 
year 1996 and will be made in fiscal year 1997 to align program plans with priorities 
being identified by the Government/industry free flight steering committee. Additional 
funding was provided to the center terminal radar approach control automation 
system (CTAS) program (identified in the Radio Technical Communication for 
Aeronautics (RTCA) Task Force 3 report as one of the free flight enabling 
technologies). In fiscal year 1996 the fianding will allow Build 1 prototype 
deployment at two additional sites without delaying the test deployment of the final 
approach spacing tool at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. New traffic 
management projects have been identified to address improved coordination with 



243 



airline operations centers and the military on special use airspace management. Since 
submittal of the fiscal year 1997 budget, the FAA has identified an additional 
requirement of approximately $7 million for modeling, operational studies, and 
analysis supporting free flight in the Research, Engineering, and Development 
Appropriation (R,E&D). Opportunities for redirection of other programs' emphasis 
and resources are essential and must take advantage of joint Government/industry 
actions to prioritize programs by: (1) reaching early agreement on requirements, (2) 
collaboration on modeling, simulation and benefit/cost analyses, and (3) reaching 
agreement on priorities and timing for implementation On April 11, the 
Government/industry free flight steering committee met and agreed to prioritize the 
recommendations, identify industry resources, and develop a joint free flight action 
plan User agreement with the timing of the FAA capital investments, benefits to be 
derived that promote equipage, and participation in the accompanying procedural 
changes, will provide a efficient but resource protracted implementation strategy for 
free flight. 

Question Various aviation groups believe that free flight can be implemented 
as soon as the year 2000, while FAA estimates the year 2006 Please describe the 
differences between the two estimates. 

Answer Early elements of free flight are possible and are being 
accommodated with the procedural changes A basic tenant of free flight is the 
removal of unnecessary restrictions created by today's air traffic control system 
Time will be required to investigate the safety and efficiency implications of longer 
term recommendations relating to changes in separation. The year 2006 estimate 
reflects the timing to migrate towards a mature free flight environment. 

In the RTCA Task Force 3 report there were 46 recommendations for 
implementation of free flight. In that mix, the Task Force identified 37 as near term 
(1995-1997), six as mid-term (1998-2000) and three as far-term (2001- on). For each 
recommendation, the FAA estimate, extending to 2006, reflects scheduling within 
existing resource constraints. Of the 37 near-term recommendations, 13 will be 
implemented within the recommended timeframe. Considerable additional work is 
needed to define performance requirements for collaborative decision making, 
modeling and analysis to support near-term procedural and airspace design changes 
for efficiency and capacity, increased international coordination, and benefit analyses 
for some of the mid- and far-term recommendations. Opportunities to reprioritize 
scheduled resources to meet this shortfall will not be met within currently anticipated 
allocations. Direct participation by the aviation community in supporting these efforts 
with personnel and information will assist the implementation schedule but most will 
be deferred. This work is a mix of activities funded and unfunded in the R,E&D or 
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Appropriations. 

FAA PERSONNEL AND PROCUREMENT REFORM 

Question In the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, the FAA was granted 
unprecedented authority to implement both personnel and procurement reform. One 
of the goals in providing this authority was to curb the rapid growth in the costs of 
FAA. However, in fiscal year 1997, the Department is asking for an increase of 5.9 
percent above the fiscal year 1996 level for FAA operations. What primarily 
contributes to this $273 million increase for FAA operations? 



244 



Answer. The increase for the FAA Operations Appropriation is primarily 
comprised of two categories of expenses. The first category are mandatory pay 
increases that total roughly $130 million These costs are associated with the fiscal 
year 1 997 pay raise, annualization of the fiscal year 1 996 pay raise, and within-grade 
increases The second category of costs are those that are required for operational 
reasons and total approximately $120 million. These costs are made up of increases in 
the controller, inspector, and field maintenance workforces, along with a $90 million 
increase to cover the operational costs of new equipment items purchased through the 
F&E Appropriation. 

Question. What specific reforms took place on April 1st, as required by the 
fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill? 

Answer. In the acquisition area, a new management system was developed 
that will provide for more timely and cost-effective acquisitions. The goal of this 
system is to obtain high quality products, services, and real estate (both land and 
space) at prices that arc fair and reasonable. With the statuatory relief that was 
granted, the FAA can be innovative and creative so that the right vendor is selected to 
implement a solution using sound business judgment. This system emphasizes 
competition, selects the vendor with the best value and provides a protest forum 
through the FAA's alternative dispute resolution process The system emphasizes 
common sense decision making, flexibility, business judgment, and a team concept for 
managing procurements. The integrated product teams have the proper level of 
authority to make decisions and are responsible and accountable for their actions. The 
policy for executing this system has been written in less than 100 pages versus the 
volumes of documents that was previously mandated. Educating the acquisition 
workforce of this new system has been accomplished, which will ensure that the teams 
will use the new system to obtain their requirements. 

FAA has developed and fully implemented new personnel management 
systems that permit further modification and contain a transition period The ability to 
improve these systems and have a rational transition period are needed to carry out 
Congress's instructions to develop systems that meet FAA's unique needs and are 
more timely and cost-effective. 

Question. When do you expect that FAA and this Committee will see the 
results of personnel and procurement reforms which will, hopefully, lead to lower 
operating expenses? 

Answer. Immediate positive results have occurred in certain actions under the 
new acquisition process. For example, a contract termination effort which would 
have taken several months under the old process to award a replacement contract, 
took only a matter of days to award under the new process. Integrated Product 
Teams (IPTs) are baselining their project timelines to meet abbreviated schedules and 
estimating lower resource costs because of the flexibility of the new system. FAA's 
goal is to reduce the time it takes to award a contract by 50 percent and reduce cost 
by 20 percent within the next three years. 

The first challenge of personnel reform is to maintain cost neutrality 
by maintaining the balance between agency productivity and various elements of cost. 
Supporting the FAA's goal of cost neutrality, short term personnel initiatives for 
example, incentives will be financed by savings from other initiatives such as pay 



245 



changes associated with overtime and night differentials. With specific regard to the 
fiscal year 1997 budget, we have projected no net reform-generated savings 

The implementation of FAA personnel reform initiatives will require initial 
investments to contain personnel costs for the future, including development of the 
infrastructure. An extremely critical short-term cost involves the design and 
implementation of an integrated Human Resource Information System (HRIS). 
Reduced costs will come from such initiatives as a redesign of our PCS move policy, 
changes to the employee relocation program policy, and changes in pay policy As 
with any large scale organizational change, savings will be realized over time and will 
require a major capital investment in information systems, process reengineering, and 
user training for the new personnel system 

Personnel reform implementation will be managed to permit the FAA to 
operate the National Airspace System at an optimal cost-product balance, and 
productivity and cost "savings" in one area may well be applied to other areas to 
stabilize and balance the cost of operations As implementation proceeds, of course, 
we will be evaluating the investments that are needed and the impact that the related 
productivity increases and cost avoidances have on our outyear resource 
requirements 

Question What criteria will the agency use to determine which projects will 
immediately begin implementing the new procurement rules? 

Answer The FAA analyzed a number of factors before deciding upon which 
projects would be eligible to begin using the new procurement rules. Among factors 
considered were the following: 

1. Deliverability of the project's product within the three-year time frame set for the 
initial evaluation of the new acquisition management system 

2 Products designed to meet the needs of FAA' s two principal customers, the airline 
and general aviation industries, and one to increase internal FAA productivity and 
efficiency 

3. Ability to use new technology for these products, while maximizing the use of 
commercial-off-the-shelf/non developmental items. 

4 Products which would feature open architecture, allowing rapid insertion of 
technology 

5 Projects which would involve as much as possible the flill-range of the acquisition 
process, from research through pre-planned product improvements. 

6. One project from each of the three main product/service areas within the 
Acquisition and Research domain: Air Traffic Systems Development, 
Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance, and Information Technology. 

Question Given the budget constraints^ I assume this subcommittee will be 
under (as well as all domestic discretionary spending), what arguments can be made to 
justify the FAA operations increase of 5.9 percent? 

Answer. Safety, security, and increased efficiency for users of the aviation 
system 

FAA knows that any increase in this time of tight discretionary spending 
presents a problem However, it must be recognized that if the agency is to continue 
providing the services currently expected from it, the increase included in the request 
is necessary Any funding level below that requested would, by necessity, translate 



246 



into a decrease in services provided to the aviation industry and very possibly a 
decrease in the efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS). 

Question. What specific rule changes will allow the FAA to immediately save 
1 5 percent in premium and overtime pay cost, as reported in your opening statement? 

Answer Prior to reform, Sunday premium pay was paid for the entire shift if 
any portion of the shift fell on Sunday. For example, eight hours of the Sunday 
premium was paid for a shift that started at 1 1 p.m. Sunday night and ended at 7 a.m. 
Monday morning. Under reform, the premium will be paid for only the hour from 1 1 
p.m to midnight. 

Similarly, in the past, night differential was paid to employees who, after the 
shift schedule was posted, took leave and did not work. Changes approved as part of 
reform ended that practice. Also, reform changed the definition of overtime. Prior to 
reform, employees who worked "quick turnaround" shifts qualified for overtime by 
working more than eight hours in a 24 hour period. For example, one shift could run 
from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., and the quick turnaround shift might start at 1 1 p.m. on the 
same day The hour between 11 p.m. and midnight would be credited as overtime. 
Under reform, in the case of "quick turnarounds," time worked in excess of eight 
hours in a 24 hour period does not qualify as overtime and will be paid at the basic 
rate 

Question. FAA has stated that is plans to implement changes over a period of 
years. In the procurement arena, FAA officials have stated the initial goal of the new 
system is to reduce the cost of purchases by 20 percent and the time by 50 percent. In 
the personnel area, officials have stated that the elimination of certain work rules 
would reduce premium and overtime pay by 15 percent immediately. Did the FAA 
consider recent changes to procurement laws, in areas such as "procurement integrity" 
and "bid protest," in developing its new system? Please provide specifics as to which 
provisions were incorporated and why others were rejected? 

Answer. FAA considered recent changes in procurement laws (as well as 
industry best practices, and procedures used by other government agencies exempt 
from procurement laws), FAA considered the objectives of the recent changes in 
procurement laws, but did not necessarily adopt those changes. For instance, FAA 
did not include "procurement integrity" requirements because other laws adequately 
cover the intent of this requirement. FAA did not adopt changes in "bid protests" 
because the changes were still within a framework of formal adjudication, which is 
resource intensive and costly. However, FAA did adapt some provisions of the recent 
changes, especially those mirroring commercial practices. For example, FAA will rely 
on information other than cost or pricing data and emphasize price analysis. It will 
not require determinations and findings for using cost type contracts, provide for 
whistleblower protection for contractor employees, and will establish a preference for 
commercial items and straightforward means of purchasing commercial items. 

Question. Will the new procurement rules cover small purchases as well as 
major capital acquisitions? 

Answer. FAA's acquisition management system covers both large and small 
dollar procurements. 



247 



Question. What metrics will be used to determine progress toward meeting 
the goal of reducing acquisition time and cost? 

Answer. FAA is developing metrics and anticipates establishing four broad 
areas of measurement: time, cost, quality, and customer satisfaction. Within these 
broad areas, there will be subsets of measurement criteria. For example, time will be 
measured in such areas as elapsed time from solicitation to award, number of program 
schedule delays, and time from first delivery to commissioning Cost will be assessed 
in areas such as proposed versus actual program costs, number of personnel to 
manage programs, commercial items versus developmental items, and industry 
expenses to bid on FAA contracts. Quality will be measured against number of 
changes in program baselines, number of system failures during testing, and number of 
technology insertions. Customer satisfaction will be measured by timeliness to field 
new systems, number of system failures during the system's lifecycle, and use of non- 
material solutions to satisfy mission needs. 

Question. Given that one aspect of OPM's oversight role is to prevent abuse 
of personnel regulations, what procedures have been incorporated into FAA's new 
system to prevent potential abuse? 

Answer. FAA has specifically re-adopted 0PM merit principles and the 
provisions of OPM's "prohibited personnel practices" in its new Personnel 
Management System. Employees may grieve or sue the agency for failing to comply 
with these principles in applying personnel practices Bargaining units will also 
continue to negotiate on applicable provisions and application of many personnel 
regulations, and will continue to watch over implementation with its membership. 
These steps should significantly help to prevent abuse of personnel regulations. In 
addition, several committees, for example, the compensation committee, are being 
estabished to ensure agencywide consistency in application of new systems. The 
compensation committee will formulate the agency's philosophy, framework and 
design architecture of compensation and rewards systems. The committee will: (1) 
provide recommendations to the Administrator concerning compensation initiatives, 
(2) articulate the framework for creation of new pay systems, and (3) control pay 
costs and leverage pay to accomplish objectives. 

Question. What is DOT's role with respect to oversight of major FAA 
acquisitions? 

Answer. Although DOT is not a member of the FAA Joint Resources Council 
and therefore does not directly oversee major FAA acquisitions, they are invited to all 
major acquisition reviews and may participate at their choice. 

FAA CONTRACTOR TRAINING 

Question. In the 1996 Transportation Appropriations bill, the Committee 
urged that the FAA make maximum use of a private contract to provide proficiency 
training for air traffic controllers It is our understanding that, although the contract 
called for $23 million per year in training, the FAA only funded about $10 million in 
1995 Isthistrue"^ 

Answer Yes At the beginning of 1995, there were 1,083 developmental 
controllers to be trained at those facilities utilizing ATC contract training In addition, 
some Capital Investment Plan (CIP) projects were delayed, which resulted in a 



248 



reduced training requirement. As a result, we were able to meet our needs with $10 
million in funding. 

Question. It has been reported to the Committee that this contract is being 
further reduced to about $8 million for 1996. Is this also true? 

Answer. The contract was originally reduced to $8.5 million for 1996. 
However, a number of CIP programs such as Voice Switching and Control System 
(VSCS) increased the demand for contract training services at some facilities. 
Therefore, FAA is in the process of adding approximately $1.2 million to the 
contract, which will result in a total spending of approximately $9.7 million on ATC 
contract training in 1996. 

Question. Since you have recently reduced air traffic controller training to 
virtually zero at 20 sites, how do you plan to provide training for current and new 
controllers? 

Answer. Several months ago, FAA estimated that the $8,5 million originally 
allocated to the training contract would be depleted in June 1996. As a result, funding 
for 20 sites was reduced significantly effective May 1, 1996 Since that time, 
additional funding has been identified, facility training requirements have been 
reviewed, and distribution of that funding is now underway to provide training for 
current and new controllers for the remainder of fiscal year 1996. The 20 sites which 
had funding reduced significantly on May 1, 1996, have now received additional 
funding which should be adequate to support required training. 

Question. The Committee has been told that in some of those sites where 
proficiency training has been reduced by these cuts, that operational errors have 
increased dramatically. Is this true? 

Answer. No. There has been no statistically significant increase in operational 
errors that can be attributed to a reduction of contractor provided proficiency training. 
Proficiency training is also routinely conducted at sites by FAA personnel regardless 
of available contractor resources. 

Question Is it also true that in areas where training has been increased, 
controller proficiency has increased and operational errors decreased? 

Answer. Proficiency training is conducted in air traffic control facilities so that 
the controller workforce will have the knowledge and skills to maintain a high degree 
of expertise and performance. This contributes to reducing operational errors from 
the amount that would exist without the proficiency training. 

The number of operational errors that occur in a fiscal year are so few as 
compared to operational activity, a current rate of .52 operational errors per 100,000 
operational activities, that they are not statistically significant. Therefore, a 
correlation between training dollars and operational errors would be less significant. 
Based on available data, there is no significant correlation between operational errors 
and an increase or decrease in training dollars. 

Question. Please provide data on those areas that have received both reduced 
and increased training, and the correlation to operational error. 

Answer There is no statistical correlation between the level of contractor 
provided training and operational errors. The information follows: 



249 



TRAINING AND OPERTIONAL ERROR INFORMATION 





Fiscal Year 
1992 


Fiscal Year 
1993 


Fiscal Year 
1994 


Fiscal Year 
1995 


Training Contract Expenditures 


$24.7M 


$20. 5M 


$11 8M 


$9.9M 


Operational Errors 


742 


741 


790 


780 



Question Have you spent the funds originally designated for this training 
contract? 

Answer FAA will have spent all fiscal year 1996 funds designated for this 
contract by June 30, 1996. To continue through the remainder of fiscal year 1996, we 
have reprogrammed $1 .2 million to the training contract, bringing the fiscal year 1996 
total to $9.7 million, which is sufficient to meet our training requirements. 

Question. How much of your budget request for fiscal 1997 do you plan to 
spend on this contract? Is that enough? 

Answer. FAA is currently planning to spend $8 5 million of fiscal year 1997 
budget request on this contract. The $8.5 million is the minimum amount required for 
actual training needs. FAA will closely monitor the training contract expenditures and 
our actual training requirements as we execute the fiscal year 1997 budget. If 
additional funds are required, we will reprogram funds as necessary to ensure that 
essential controller training is provided. 

Question. If the Committee provided all $13.5 million as requested by the 
FAA in a separate line item for air traffic controller training, would you spend it all on 
thaf? 

Answer. The fiscal year 1997 budget request assumes base funding for the 
training contract of $8.5 million which is sufficient to meet the most critical training 
requirements. If $13.5 million was provided in a separate line item by Congress, FAA 
would spend the entire amount on the training contract, unless actual overall FAA 
priorities at the start of fiscal year 1997 required reprogramming of a portion of those 
funds to unexpected higher priority budget shortfalls. 



Question The FAA has had a blue ribbon panel review equipment outages over 
the last 24 months One of the recommendations was to increase training for 
maintenance technicians as well as air traffic controllers How is this being 
accomplished? 

Answer. In accordance with the blue ribbon panels recommendation, and as 
stated in the ARTCC Action Items Report, the FAA has supplemented the Airway 
Facilities (AF) training budget with $5 million. In addition, special courses were 
developed and taught in critical, high visibility systems such as the IBM 9020, Critical 
and Essential Power System, and others. 

Air traffic controllers have received training on back-up radar systems and 
procedures for transitioning to and from the back-up systems via video tapes, which 
were delivered to the field in August, September and October of 1995. In addition, 
computer-based refresher lessons to the various modes of the Direct Access Radar 
Channel (DARC) system are under development and should be ready for delivery to 
the field in September of 1996. 



250 



WORK FORCE STAFFING 

Question. Please provide the Committee a listing of all the air traffic control 
towers above Level I that are overstaffed, and all the air traffic control towers above 
Level I that are understaffed 

Answer. The staffing standard is considered accurate within 10 percent at the 
facility level and within 5 percent nationally. Listed below are the overstaffed and 
understaffed air traffic control towers above Level I. 

Question Please provide for the record a table similar to that found on pages 
40-42 of Senate hearing 104-76, part 2, which lists those towers that historically have 
controller positions available: 

Answer. The table of facilities that historically have controller positions 
available is shown below 

Overstaffed Air Traffic Control Towers 
above Level I 



Region 


Level 


Facility Name 


Ident 


ATCS 
SS96 


ATCS 
AOB 


AWP 




San Diego ATCT 


SAN 


14 


30 


ASO 




Sarasota ATCT 


SRQ 


10 


18 


AWP 




Stockton ATCT 


SCK 


19 


34 


ASW 




Dallas Love Field ATCT 


DAL 


19 


30 


ANM 




Spokane Intl ATCT 


GEO 


23 


35 


ANM 




Seattle Tacoma TRACON 


S46 


37 


56 


ANM 




Aspen Pitkin County ATCT 


ASE 


10 


15 


ANM 




Eugene ATCT 


EUG 


16 


24 


AEA 




Erie Intl TRACAB 


ERI 


16 


24 


AEA 




Roanoke Regional ATCT 


ROA 


19 


27 


ASO 




San Juan Intl ATCT 


SJU 


12 


17 


AWP 




Ontario Intl ATCT 


ONT 


12 


17 


AWP 




San Jose Intl ATCT 


SJC 


17 


24 


ANM 




Denver Stapleton ATCT 


DEN 


30 


41 


ACE 


2 


Kansas City Downtown ATCT 


MKC 


11 


15 


AEA 


2 


Edwin A. Link ATCT 


BGM 


14 


19 


ACE 


2 


Spirit Of St. Louis ATCT 


SUS 


12 


16 


ASO 


3 


Lexington ATCT 


LEX 


18 


24 


ASW 


3 


Fort Smith TRACAB 


FSM 


21 


28 


ASW 


3 


Shreveport ATCT 


SHV 


21 


28 


ASO 


3 


Chattanooga ATCT 


CHA 


19 


25 


ANM 


3 


Portland Intl ATCT 


PDX 


19 


25 


ASW 


3 


William P. Hobby ATCT 


HOU 


16 


21 


ANM 


2 


Tri-Cities ATCT 


PSC 


13 


17 


ASW 


2 


Waco ATCT 


ACT 


13 


17 


ASW 


3 


Abilene Dyess RAPCON 


ABI 


20 


26 



251 



Region 


Level 


Facility Name 


Ident 


ATCS 

SS96 


ATCS 
AOB 


ASO 




Louisville Standiford ATCT 


SDF 


37 


48 


ASO 




Huntsville ATCT 


HSV 


17 


22 


ASO 




Macon RAPCON 


MCN 


17 


22 


AWP 




Palm Springs ATCT 


PSP 


18 


23 


ASO 




St. Petersburg ATCT 


PIE 


11 


14 


ASO 




Tri-City Regional ATCT 


TRI 


15 


19 


ANM 




Seattle Tacoma Intl ATCT 


SEA 


23 


29 


ANM 




Salt Lake City Intl ATCT 


SLC 


23 


29 


ANM 




Salt Lake City TRACON 


S56 


39 


49 


AAL 




Fairbanks Intl ATCT 


FAI 


16 


20 


ASW 




Fort Worth Meacham ATCT 


FTW 


12 


15 


ACE 




Omaha ATCT 


OMA 


12 


15 


ACE 




Omaha TRACON 


R90 


16 


20 


AGL 




Green Bay ATCT 


GRB 


20 


25 


ASO 




Wilmington ATCT 


ILM 


16 


20 


AWP 




Tucson Intl ATCT 


TUS 


16 


. 20 


ANE 




Portland Intl ATCT 


PWM 


21 


26 


ASO 




Columbus Metro ATCT 


CSG 


17 


21 


AEA 




Greater Buffalo Intl ATCT 


BUF 


26 


32 


ANM 




Denver TRACON 


DOl 


53 


65 


AGL 




Aurora Municipal ATCT 


ARR 


9 


11 


ASO 




Greer ATCT 


GSP 


18 


22 


ASO 




Montgomery RAPCON 


MGM 


18 


22 


AGL 




Evansville Dress Reg ATCT 


EVV 


19 


23 


AGL 




Youngstown Municipal ATCT 


YNG 


19 


23 


ANE 




Bangor Intl ATCT 


BGR 


19 


23 


ASW 




Midland Regional ATCT 


MAF 


19 


23 


ASO 




Birmingham Municipal ATCT 


BHM 


29 


35 


ASO 




Orlando Executive ATCT 


ORL 


10 


12 


AWP 




Scottsdale ATCT 


SDL 


10 


12 


ANE 




Burlington Intl ATCT 


BTV 


20 


24 


ANE 




Yankee TRACON 


Y90 


26 


31 


AWP 




San Francisco Intl ATCT 


SFO 


26 


31 


AWP 




Bakersfield ATCT 


BFL 


21 


25 


ASW 




Gregg County TRACAB 


GGG 


16 


19 


ASO 




Asheville Regional ATCT 


AVL 


16 


19 


ACE 




St. Louis TRACON 


T75 


43 


51 


ASW 




Houston Hooks ATCT 


DWH 


11 


13 


ASW 




Lakefront ATCT 


NEW 


11 


13 


AWP 




Kahului ATCT 


OGG 


11 


13 


AWP 




So. California TRACON 


SCT 


194 


229 


AGL 


2 


Toledo Express ATCT 


TOL 


23 


27 


ASO 




Fort Myers ATCT 


RSW 


23 


27 



Region 


Level 


Facility Name 


Ident 


ATCS 
SS96 


ATCS 
AOB 


AGL 




Minneapolis St. Paul ATCT 


MSP 


29 


34 


AEA 




Westchester Cnty ATCT 


HPN 


12 


14 


AGL 




Willow Run ATCT 


YIP 


12 


14 


ASW 




Lake Charles TRACAB 


LCH 


12 


14 


AGL 




Muskegon Cnty ATCT 


MKG 


18 


21 


AGL 




Moline Quad City ATCT 


MLI 


18 


21 


ANE 




Bradley Intl ATCT 


BDL 


12 


14 


ASO 




Jacksonville Intl ATCT 


JAX 


43 


50 


AEA 




Baltimore Intl ATCT 


BWI 


19 


22 


AEA 




Charleston ATCT 


CRW 


19 


22 


AGL 




Chicago Midway ATCT 


MDW 


19 


22 


AEA 




Long Island Macarthur ATCT 


ISP 


13 


15 


AEA 




Teterboro ATCT 


TEB 


13 


15 


AEA 




La Guardia ATCT 


LGA 


26 


30 


ASW 




New Orleans Moisant ATCT 


MSY 


33 


38 


ACE 




Springfield Regional ATCT 


SGF 


20 


23 


AGL 




Greater Peoria ATCT 


PIA 


20 


23 


AGL 




Rockford ATCT 


RFD 


21 


23 


ASW 




Baton Rouge Metro ATCT 


BTR 


21 


24 


ASO 




Columbia Metro ATCT 


CAE 


21 


24 


ACE 




St. Louis/Lambert Intl ATCT 


STL 


29 


33 


AGL 




Akron Canton Regional ATCT 


CAK 


23 


26 


AWP 




Santa Barbara Muni ATCT 


SBA 


23 


26 


ASW 




Oklahoma City ATCT 


OKC 


40 


45 


ASO 




Greensboro ATCT 


GSO 


33 


37 


ASO 




Greater Cincinnati Intl ATCT 


CVG 


58 


65 


AGL 




Terre Haute ATCT 


HUF 


17 


19 


AGL 




Saginaw ATCT 


MBS 


17 


19 


AEA 




John F Kennedy Intl ATCT 


JFK 


26 


29 


AWP 




Torrance Municipal ATCT 


TOA 


9 


10 


AEA 




Wilkes-Barre ATCT 


AVP 


18 


20 


ASW 




Dallas/Fort Worth TRACON 


DIO 


91 


101 


AGL 




Indianapolis Intl ATCT 


IND 


46 


51 


ASO 




Fort Lauderdale ATCT 


FLL 


19 


21 


ACE 




Des Moines Muni ATCT 


DSM 


29 


32 


AGL 


2 


St. Paul Downtown ATCT 


STP 


10 


11 


ASW 


2 


Addison ATCT 


ADS 


10 


11 


AWP 


2 


Mesa ATCT 


FEZ 


10 


11 


AEA 


3 


Richmond Intl ATCT 


RIC 


30 


33 


ASO 


4 


Nashville Metro ATCT 


BNA 


50 


55 


ASO 


3 


Tallahassee ATCT 


TLH 


21 


23 


ASW 


3 


Little Rock ATCT 


LIT 


32 


35 


AEA 


2 


Allegheny County ATCT 


AGC 


11 


12 



253 



Region 


Level 


Facility Name 


Idcnt 


ATCS 
SS96 


ATCS 
AOB 


ASO 


2 


Opa Locka ATCT 


OPF 


11 


12 


AWP 




Phoenix Deer Valley ATCT 


DVT 


11 


12 


AWP 




Sacramento Metro ATCT 


SMF 


11 


12 


AEA 




Griffiss AFB ATCT 


RME 


11 


12 


AEA 




Huntington ATCT 


HTS 


12 


13 


ASW 




El Paso Intl ATCT 


ELP 


24 


26 


AWP 




Reno ATCT 


RNO 


24 


26 


ASO 




Augusta ATCT 


AGS 


13 


14 


AGL 




Dayton Intl ATCT 


DAY 


43 


46 


ASO 


2 


Myrtle Beach ATCT 


MYR 


15 


16 


AWP 




Phoenix Intl ATCT 


PHX 


32 


34 


ASW 




Monroe Regional TRACAB 


MLU 


17 


18 


AWP 




Burbank ATCT 


BUR 


17 


18 


AWP 




Oakland Bay TRACON 


O90 


68 


72 


AAL 


4 


Anchorage TRACON {& Bethel) 


All 


35 


37 


ASO 




Jackson Intl ATCT 


JAN 


18 


19 


ASW 




Amarillo ATCT 


AMA 


18 


19 


AGL 




South Bend ATCT 


SBN 


19 


20 


AGL 




Milwaukee Mitchell ATCT 


MKE 


39 


41 


ANE 




Cape TRACON 


K90 


20 


21 


ASO 




Mobile ATCT 


MOB 


20 


21 


ASW 




Lafayette Regional ATCT 


LFT 


20 


21 


AEA 




Pittsburgh Intl ATCT 


PIT 


66 


69 


AWP 




Phoenix TRACON 


P50 


44 


46 


AGL 




Madison ATCT 


MSN 


23 


24 


ANM 




Portland TRACON 


P80 


24 


25 


ASO 




Knoxville ATCT 


TYS 


26 


27 


AWP 




High Desert TRACON 


ElO 


28 


29 


ASO 


5 


Tampa Intl ATCT 


TPA 


58 


60 


ANE 




Manchester ATCT 


MHT 


30 


31 


ASW 




Houston TRACON 


190 


74 


76 


ASW 




Albuquerque ATCT 


ABQ 


39 


40 


ANE 




Boston TRACON 


A90 


40 


41 


ASW 




Corpus Christi ATCT 


CRP 


44 


45 


AGL 




Minneapolis TRACON 


M98 


44 


45 


AGL 




Chicago O'hare Intl ATCT 


ORD 


49 


50 


AEA 




Philadelphia Intl ATCT 


PHL 


68 


69 


ASO 




Charlotte ATCT 


CLT 


73 


74 



254 



Understaffed Air Traffic Control Towers 
above Level I 



Region 


Level 


Facility Name 


Ident 


ATCS 
SS96 


ATCS 
AOB 


AGL 




Chicago O'Hare TRACON 


C90 


87 


86 


AEA 




Dulles IntI ATCT 


IAD 


61 


60 


ASO 




Memphis Intl ATCT 


MEM 


57 


56 


ASO 




Atlanta Hartsfield ATCT 


ATL 


95 


93 


AEA 




Norfolk Intl ATCT 


ORF 


44 


43 


ASW 




Tulsa Intl ATCT 


TUL 


38 


37 


ANE 




Providence ATCT 


PVD 


37 


36 


ACE 




Wichita Midcontinent ATCT 


ICT 


34 


33 


ASO 




Orlando Intl ATCT 


MCO 


65 


63 


AGL 




Detr«rit Metro TOWER 


DTW 


31 


30 


AEA 




Newark Intl ATCT 


EWR 


31 


30 


ANE 




Boston Logan ATCT 


BOS 


30 


29 


AWP 




Fresno ATCT 


FAT 


29 


28 


AEA 




Rochester Monroe Cnty ATCT 


ROC 


28 


27 


AGL 




Detroit TRACON 


D21 


56 


54 


AGL 




Lansing ATCT 


LAN 


25 


24 


AWP 




Tucson TRACON 


U90 


25 


24 


ACE 




Kansas City Intl ATCT 


MCI 


49 


47 


ASO 




Miami Intl ATCT 


MIA 


93 


89 


AGL 




Port Columbus Intl ATCT 


CMH 


45 


43 


AGL 




Kalamazoo County ATCT 


AZO 


22 


21 


ASO 




Gulfport Biloxi Reg ATCT 


GPT 


20 


19 


AWP 




Monterey Peninsula ATCT 


MRY 


18 


17 


ACE 




Sioux City ATCT 


SUX 


16 


15 


AEA 




Washington National ATCT 


DCA 


63 


59 


AGL 




Flying Cloud ATCT 


FCM 


14 


13 


ASO 




Palm Beach Intl ATCT 


PBI 


41 


38 


AEA 




Elmira ATCT 


ELM 


13 


12 


ASO 




Ft. Lauderdale Exec ATCT 


FXE 


13 


12 


ASO 




Meridian Nas RATCF 


NMM 


13 


12 


ASO 




Charleston Intl ATCT 


CHS 


25 


23 


AEA 




New York TRACON 


N90 


235 


216 


AEA 




Republic ATCT 


FRG 


12 


11 


AGL 




Bismarck TRACAB 


BIS 


12 


11 


ASO 




De Kalb Peachtree ATCT 


PDK 


12 


11 


AEA 




Andrews AFB ATCT 


ADW 


24 


22 


AEA 




Greater Wilmington ATCT 


ILG 


11 


10 


AEA 


2 


Poughkeepsie ATCT 


POU 


11 


10 


AEA 


2 


Mercer County ATCT 


TTN 


11 


10 



255 



Region 


Level 


Facility Name 


Ident 


ATCS 
SS96 


ATCS 
AOB 


ASO 


2 


Vero Beach Municipal ATCT 


VRB 


11 


10 


ASW 


2 


Roswell ATCT 


ROW 


11 


10 


ACE 


3 


Lincoln Municipal ATCT 


LNK 


21 


19 


AGL 


3 


Springfield ATCT 


SPI 


21 


19 


ASW 


4 


San Antonio ATCT 


SAT 


52 


47 


AEA 


2 


Lancaster ATCT 


LNS 


10 


9 


AGL 


2 


Ohio State Univ ATCT 


OSU 


10 


9 


AGL 


2 


Traverse City ATCT 


TVC 


10 


9 


ASO 


2 


North Perry ATCT 


HWO 


10 


9 


AWP 


5 


Los Angeles Intl ATCT 


LAX 


40 


36 


AWP 


4 


Las Vegas Intl ATCT 


LAS 


67 


60 


ACE 


3 


Cedar Rapids Muni ATCT 


CID 


19 


17 


ASO 


2 


Louisville Bowman ATCT 


LOU 


9 


8 


AWP 


2 


Hayward ATCT 


HWD 


9 


8 


AWP 


2 


San Diego Brown ATCT 


SDM 


9 


8 


AEA 


3 


Allentown ATCT 


ABE 


27 


24 


AGL 


2 


Fargo ATCT 


FAR 


16 


14 


ANM 


3 


Boeing Field ATCT 


BFI 


23 


20 


AGL 


2 


Duluth Intl ATCT 


DLH 


15 


13 


AGL 


2 


Grand Forks ATCT 


GFK 


15 


13 


AGL 


3 


Flint ATCT 


FNT 


22 


19 


AEA 


2 


Clarksburg ATCT 


CKB 


14 


12 


ANM 


2 


Great Falls Intl ATCT 


GTF 


14 


12 


ASO 


3 


Fayetteville Muni ATCT 


FAY 


25 


21 


AGL 


2 


Minneapolis Crystal ATCT 


MIC 


12 


10 


ANE 


2 


Bedford ATCT 


BED 


12 


10 


AWP 


2 


Napa County ATCT 


APC 


12 


10 


AWP 


2 


Concord ATCT 


CCR 


12 


10 


ASW 


3 


Austin ATCT 


AUS 


36 


30 


ANM 


2 


Grant County ATCT 


MWH 


17 


14 


ASW 


2 


Tyler Pounds Field ATCT 


TYR 


11 


9 


AWP 


2 


Chino ATCT 


CNO 


11 


9 


AWP 


2 


Palo Alto ATCT 


PAO 


11 


9 


AWP 


2 


Santa Monica Muni ATCT 


SMO 


11 


9 


AWP 


3 


Long Beach ATCT 


LGB 


22 


18 


AEA 


2 


Reading Muni ATCT 


RDG 


16 


13 


AGL 


3 


Grand Rapids ATCT 


GRR 


26 


21 


AEA 


2 


Manassas ATCT 


HEF 


10 


8 


ASO 


2 


Fort Pierce ATCT 


FPR 


10 


8 


AWP 


2 


Camarillo ATCT 


CMA 


10 


8 


AWP 


2 


El Monte ATCT 


EMT 


10 


8 


AWP 


2 


Hilo ATCT 


ITO 


10 


8 


ANM 


3 


Colorado Springs ATCT 


COS 


30 


24 



256 



Region 


Level 


Facility Name 


Ident 


ATCS 

SS96 


ATCS 
AOB 


AWP 


5 


Sacramento TRACON 


MCC 


44 


35 


ASO 


4 


Daytona Beach ATCT 


DAB 


56 


44 


ASW 


2 


Tulsa Jones ATCT 


RVS 


18 


14 


ANM 


2 


Portland Hillsboro ATCT 


HIO 


13 


10 


ANM 


2 


Everett ATCT 


PAE 


13 


10 


AWP 


4 


Honolulu Intl ATCT 


HNL 


47 


36 


ASW 


3 


Lubbock ATCT 


LBB 


34 


26 


AGL 


3 


Champaign ATCT 


CMI 


25 


19 


AEA 


2 


Patrick Henry Intl ATCT 


PHF 


12 


9 


AEA 


2 


N.E. Philadelphia ATCT 


PNE 


12 


9 


AWP 


2 


Kwajalein ATCT 


KWA 


4 


3 


AWP 


2 


San Diego Montgomery ATCT 


MYF 


12 


9 


ASO 


4 


Pensacola TRACON 


P31 


44 


33 


AGL 


2 


West Lafayette ATCT 


LAF 


14 


10 


AEA 


3 


Syracuse Intl ATCT 


SYR 


38 


27 


ANM 


3 


Centennial ATCT 


APA 


24 


17 


AWP 


3 


Prescott ATCT 


PRC 


17 


12 


ANE 


2 


Danbury Municipal ATCT 


DXR 


10 


7 


AWP 


2 


Reid Hillview ATCT 


RHV 


10 


7 


AGL 


2 


Palwaukee ATCT 


PWK 


13 


9 


ANM 


2 


Pueblo Memorial TRACAB 


PUB 


13 


9 


ASO 


2 


Central Florida Regional ATCT 


SFB 


13 


9 


AWP 


2 


Livermore ATCT 


LVK 


13 


9 


AWP 


2 


La Verne Brackett ATCT 


POC 


13 


9 


AGL 


3 


Pontiac ATCT 


PTK 


25 


17 


AAL 


2 


Juneau Intl ATCT 


JNU 


12 


8 


AEA 


2 


Caldwell ATCT 


CDW 


15 


10 


AGL 


2 


East St. Louis ATCT 


CPS 


12 


8 


AGL 


2 


Sioux Falls ATCT 


FSD 


15 


10 


ANM 


2 


Renton Municipal ATCT 


RNT 


9 


6 


AWP 


2 


Grand Canyon ATCT 


GCN 


12 


8 


AWP 


3 


Van Nuys ATCT 


VNY 


23 


15 


ANM 


2 


Medford ATCT 


MFR 


10 


6 


AEA 


2 


Morristown Municipal ATCT 


MMU 


14 


8 


ASO 


2 


Pompano Beach Airpark ATCT 


PMP 


11 


6 


AWP 


2 


Carlsbad ATCT 


CRQ 


12 


6 



257 



STAFF INCREASES 

Question. Given this is the third year in a row that FAA has requested 
additional funding to secure additional inspectors, controllers, and certification staff, 
please provide end-of-year staffing levels for inspectors, controllers, and certification 
staff for fiscal years 1992 through 1996. and estimated for 1997. 

Answer. The end-of-year staffing levels for Flight Standards Service (AFS) 
and Aircraft Certification (AIR) aviation safety inspectors (ASI) for fiscal years 1992 
through 1995, and the estimated levels for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 are as 
follows: 

AFS & AIR Field Staffing Increase - Fiscal Years 1992 Through 1997 





AFS 


AFS 




AIR 


AIR 


Fiscal Years 


ASIs 


Field/Admin 
Clerical 




Engineers/ 
Pilots 


ASIs 


1992 (Actual) 


2,496 


427 




340 


123 


1993 (Actual) 


' 2,423 


413 




344 


128 


1994 (Actual) 


2,324 


415 




332 


130 


1995 (Actual) 


2,531 


470 




426 


158 


1996 (Estimated) 


2,762 


470 




419 


156 


1997 (Estimated) 


2,916 


622 




494 


185 


The end-of-year staffing levels for the controller work force 


are as follows 






Controller End-of-Year Staffing 










Fiscal Year 1992 


17,982 










Fiscal Year 1993 


17,688 










Fiscal Year 1994 


17,544 










Fiscal Year 1995 


17,322 










Fiscal Year 1996 


17,050 


(estimated) 








Fiscal Year 1997 


17,300 (estimated) 





Question. Please list those facilities/locations which are targeted to receive the 
additional positions that are required. Include the anticipated number of positions, 
broken down by type of positions, at each facility/location. 

Answer. Specific information on the specific locations where the 154 
additional aviation safety inspectors and the 152 additional Flight Standards field 
office clerical and administrative personnel will be hired is not currently available. 
Those specific hiring locations will be determined after enactment of the Department 
of Transportation's fiscal year 1997 appropriation. At that time, the FAA will analyze 
current aviation safety inspector hiring needs by location and adjust both aviation 
safety inspectors and clerical and administrative hiring to staff those field offices most 
in need of the additional staff. In that manner. Flight Standards staffing will better 
meet the changing needs of the aviation industry by matching staffing to the most 
current available data on the number and type of certificate holders serviced by each 
field office. Additionally, determinations on the priority for filling vacancies will also 
consider attrition that occurs before the end of fiscal year 1996. 

The additional positions requested for the Aircraft Certification Service in the 
fiscal year 1997 President's budget will be distributed based on the fiscal year 1996 
Staffing Standards data Based on the actual fiscal year 1 995 staffing standards data 
each Aircraft Certification organization was approximately 7 percent below the 
required technical staffing level Once the fiscal year 1996 Staffing Standards 



information is received, the anticipated additional fiscal year 1997 positions will be 
distributed in accordance with the required technical and technical support position 
levels as identified by the Aircraft Certification Staffing Standards actuals for fiscal 
year 1996 and the projected/forecast levels for fiscal year 1997. 

The table below reflects the 100 air traffic controllers that are in the process 
of being hired in fiscal year 1996. In fiscal year 1997, 500 controllers will be hired. 
They will consist of 300 former controllers, 150 collegiate training initiatives, and 50 
controllers from other areas (veterans, cooperative education students, and 
reinstatements). We are presently working on the placement of the 500 controllers for 
fiscal year 1997. 

HIRING OF Am TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS IN FISCAL YEAR 1996 





Former 
Controllers 


College 

Training 

Initiative 

(CTI) 


CO-OP 
Students 


Vets 


Reinstate 
ment 


Total 


Alaska Region 














Juneau ATCT 




1 








1 


Mernll l-"ield ATCT 




3 








3 


Regional Total 





4 











4 
















Eastern Region 














New York TRACON 


16 










16 


Regional Total 


16 














16 
















Great Lakes Region 














Chicago ARTCC 


13 




1 




4 


18 


Chicago TRACON 


6 










6 


Clevelant ATCT 




3 








3 


Indianapolis ARTCC 


7 









1 


8 


Regional Total 


26 


3 


1 





5 


35 
















Western Pacific Region 














Oakland ARTCC 


8 












Oakland Bay TRACON 


4 












Van Nuys ATCT 


2 












Palm Springs ATCT 


2 












Burbank ATCT 


2 












Camarillo ATCT 




1 










Chino ATCT 


1 


1 










Carlsbad ATCT 




1 










El Monte ATCT 




2 










La Verne Brackett ATCT 


1 


2 










Reid Hllview ATCT 


1 


1 










Grand Canyon ATCT 




1 










Santa Monica Muni ATCT 


1 


1 










San Diego Brown ATCT 




2 








2 


Hay%vard ATCT 


2 












Livenmore ATCT 


2 












Palo Alto ATCT 


3 












Regional Total 


29 


12 











41 



259 



Soulhern Region 














San Juan ATCT 


2 














2 


San Juan CERAP 


1 










1 


St Thomas ATCT 


1 










1 


Regional Total 


4 














4 
















Grand Total 


75 


19 


1 





5 


100 

















AIRPORT PROGRAM STAFFING 

Question. Please list, by office and region, the number of airports office 
positions. 

Answer. In the Office of Airports, the number of positions by region for fiscal 
year 1996 are listed in the table below: 

Airport Program Staffing 

Region Fiscal Year 96 Positions 

Alaska 16 

Central 27 

Eastern 5 1 

Great Lakes 59 

New England 20 

Northwest Mountain 50 

Southern 64 

Southwest 47 

Western Pacific 56 

Headquarters 88 

Total 478 

Question Please list the end-of-year employment in the Airports office from 
fiscal years 1990 through 1995, and estimated for 1996 and 1997. 

Answer In the Office of Airports, the number of end-of-year positions by 
region for fiscal years 1990 through 1997 are listed in the table below. 

OFFICE OF AIRPORTS End of Year Employment 









Actuals 






Estimated 


Region 


FY 90 


FY 91 


FY 92 


FY 93 


FY 94 


FY 95 


FY 96 


FY 97 


Alaska 


16 


18 


19 


. 18 


14 


15 


16 


16 


Central 


34 


33 


33 


33 


27 


28 


27 


27 


Eastern 


47 


52 


54 


54 


46 


50 


51 


51 


Great Lakes 


64 


68 


69 


67 


57 


58 


59 


59 


New England 


18 


18 


21 


21 


19 


18 


20 


20 


Northwest Mt 


50 


55 


55 


54 


49 


49 


50 


50 


Southern 


70 


73 


67 


70 


66 


64 


64 


64 


Southwest 


49 


56 


53 


51 


43 


43 


47 


47 


Western Pacific 


49 


48 


49 


51 


47 


53 


56 


56 


Headquarters 


76 


81 


87 


87 


79 


72 


88 


88 


Total 


473 


502 


507 


506 


447 


450 


478 


478 



260 



NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE (NWS) 

Question, I understand that the FAA is proposing to cancel the contract with 
the NWS for meteorologists who provide weather data to the FAA's ARTCCs. Does 
FAA intend to replace these meteorologists with flight service personnel? 

Answer There has been no decision made by FAA to replace NWS 
meteorologists with flight service specialists in ARTCCs. 

Question. Has the FAA discussed this proposal with the NWS? Are the FAA 
flight service specialists sufficiently trained to be able to interpret weather radar data 
or to create and issue weather advisories to pilots? 

Answer. FAA has discussed this proposal with the NWS. Flight service 
specialists are sufficiently trained to interpret weather radar data and issue weather 
advisories to pilots as part of their daily duties. Additional training in creating 
weather advisories may be required. 

Question. Under this plan, will the demand for information and service shift 
from NWS meteorologists in the Center Weather Service Units at Traffic Control 
Centers, to NWS meteorologists at Weather Forecast Offices? 

Answer The NWS has stated publicly the posture of gradually easing 
themselves out of the aviation surface weather observation program. There is no 
evidence available that, if a decision was made by FAA to replace NWS 
meteorologists, it would alter the current status of NWS forecasting operations. 

Question Can you assure this Committee that air traffic safety will not be put 
at risk by eliminating these NWS meteorologists? 

Answer. There has been no decision made by FAA to eliminate NWS 
meteorologists FAA would not allow any program to be implemented that would 
compromise or jeopardize the current and established levels of aviation safety. 

Question. Are your own air route traffic personnel comfortable with the idea 
of providing weather data to pilots without input from the NWS meteorologists? 

Answer.. Weather information is received, displayed, and relayed to pilots by 
controllers from sources other than NWS meteorologists today, that is ARTCC 
HOST computer This is a current requirement and the weather data relayed by 
controllers is normally not subject to interpretation. 

Question. Is there a potential liability for the FAA in the event of a weather 
related accident, if FAA is using inadequately trained personnel to brief pilots on 
weather situations? 

Answer. FAA flight service specialists currently and routinely provide inflight 
and preflight weather briefings to pilots. These trained FAA employees would 
continue to provide equal or better service, negating any changes concerning potential 
liability to the FAA. 

Question. What is the budget impact of this proposal? 

Answer The FAA would save approximately $9. 1 million in annual contract 

costs to the NWS 



261 



FAA CONTRACT TOWERS 



Question 


Please list all current FAA contract towers. 


Answer. 


Current contract towers are shown below. 




FAA Contract Towers 




as of March 4, 1996 


Region 


Facility Name 


Alaskan 


King Salmon, AK 


Central 


Grand Island, NE 


Central 


Johnson Co Exec, KS 


Central 


Joplin Regional, MO 


Central 


Topeka, KS 


Central 


♦Rosecrans Memorial/St. Joseph, MO 


Central 


Salina Municipal, KS 


Eastern 


Niagara Falls, NY 


Eastern 


Lynchburg, VA 


Eastern 


Morgantown, WV 


Eastern 


Charlottesville-Albemarle, VA 


Eastern 


Lewisburg, WV 


Eastern 


Stewart, NY 


Eastern 


Hagerstown, MD 


Eastern 


Martin-State, MD 


Eastern 


Williamsport, PA 


Eastern 


Wheeling/Ohio County, WV 


Great Lakes 


Alton-St Louis Regional, IL 


Great Lakes 


Central Wisconsin-Mosinee, WI 


Great Lakes 


Cincinnati Lunken, OH 


Great Lakes 


Cuyahoga-Cleveland, OH 


Great Lakes 


Gary, IN 


Great Lakes 


Detroit City, MI 


Great Lakes 


Kenosha, WI 


Great Lakes 


Marion, IL 


Great Lakes 


Waukegan, IL 


Great Lakes 


Appleton, WI 


New England 


Hyannis, MA 


New England 


Worchester, MA 


New England 


Groton/New London, CT 


New England 


Barnes Municipal, MA 


New England 


Hartford Brainard, CT 


New England 


Martha's Vineyard, MA 


New England 


Nashua, NH 


New England 


New Haven-Tweed, CT 


Northwest Mtn. 


Bellingham, WA 


Northwest Mtn. 


Eagle, CO 


Northwest Mtn. 


Hailey, ID 


Northwest Mtn. 


Lewiston Nez Perce County, ID 


Northwest Mtn. 


Pendleton, OR 


Morthwest Mtn. 


Pocatello Regional, ID 


Northwest Mtn. 


McNary Field, OR 



Northwest Mtn 

Northwest Mtn 

Northwest Mtn 

Northwest Mtn 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southern 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 

Southwest 



Southwest 
Western-Pacific 



FAA Contract Towers 
as of March 4, 1996 

♦Klamath Falls, OR 

Troutdale, OR 

Olympia, OR 

Walla Walla, WA 

Athens-Ben Epps, GA 

Brookley, AL 

Greenville Downtown, SC 

Isla Grande, PR 

Jackson, TN 

Lakeland, PL 

♦Meridian, MS 

N. Myrtle Beach, SC 

Owensboro, KY 

Paducah, KY 

Panama City-Bay County, PL 

Smyrna, TN 

Valdosta, GA 

Tuscaloosa Municipal, AL 

McCollum, GA 

Naples, PL 

Titusville-Cocoa, PL 

Witham, PL 

Key West, PL 
Gainesville, PL 
Hawkins Pield. MS 
Kinston, NC 
Albert Whitted, PL 
Greenville, MS 
Easterwood, TX 
McAllen, TX 
Wiley Post, OK 
Redbird, TX 

Alexandria Esler Reg'I, LA 
Ardmore, OK 
Brownsville, TX 
Enid, OK 
Parmington, NM 
Hobbs, NM 
Laredo, TX 
New Iberia, LA 
Norman, OK 
Stinson Municipal, TX 
Texarkana Regional, AR 
PAA Contract Towers 
as of March 4, 1996 

Grand Prairie, TX 
Agana, Guam 



Western-Pacific Flagstaff, AZ 

Western-Pacific Molokai, HI 

Western-Pacific Palmdale, CA 

Western-Pacific Salinas Municipal, CA 

Western-Pacific Whiteman, CA 

Western-Pacific Chandler, AZ 

Western-Pacific Glendale.AZ 

Western-Pacific Lihue, HI 

Western-Pacific Modesto, CA 

Western-Pacific Oxnard, CA 

Western-Pacific San Luis Obispo, CA 

Western-Pacific Santa Maria, CA 

Western-Pacific Lancaster, CA 

Western-Pacific Lake Tahoe 

* Klamath Falls, OR, Rosecrans Memorial/St. Joseph, MO, and Meridian, MS, had 

its ATC operation assumed by the Air National Guard. 

TRAINING 

Question. In the operations area, there is a request for $2.7 million for 
centralized training of air traffic controllers, $2.7 million for centralized training of 
airway facilities maintenance technicians, and $1.6 million for centralized training of 
inspector staffing. Please provide the total amount of training fiinding for those three 
administrative lines of business in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and requested for 1997. 
Please detail how much of that training will be done -in-house, and how much will be 
done through contracts let to outsiders. 

Answer. The information follows: 

Breakout Of FAA Training Funding 





Total Training 


Air Traffic 




FY 1995 


$17,608 


FY 1996 


$ 16,543 


FY 1997 


$ 19,438 


Airway Facilities 




FY 1995 


$31,513 


FY 1996 


$ 25,909 


FY 1997 


$ 28,938 


Regulation and Certification 


FY 1995 


$21,776 


FY 1996 


$ 22,460 


FY 1997 


$ 24,390 



In-House 


Contract 


$15,315 
$14,606 
$17,105 


$ 2,293 
$ 1,937 
$ 2,333 


$28,267 
$24,361 
$27,202 


$ 3,246 
$ 1,548 
$ 1,736 


$ 9,822 
$13,680 
$14,878 


$11,954 
$ 8,780 
$ 9,512 



COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION 

Question. The budget requests an increase of 7.2 percent above the fiscal year 
1996 level, which includes seven fiill time equivalents (FTEs). Please describe for the 
Committee the responsibilities of these additional seven FTEs, and why they are 
necessary. 



264 



Answer. Most of the increase for the Associate Administrator for Commercial 
Space Transportation (now AST) is for the annualization of increases from the 
enacted fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 budgets. Note that the end-of-year 
(EOY) employment level for fiscal year 1996 in full time positions (FTP) is 32. The 
FTE is less than the enacted level because of the time required to fill positions, with all 
approved positions expected to be filled during fiscal year 1996. Excluding these 
annualization costs, the increase for fiscal year 1997 is 1.4 percent above the planned 
level for fiscal year 1996. 

Five of the FTEs are not new staff They represent an annualization of the 
fiscal year 1 996 planned staffing. Three of these five FTEs ftiUy fijnd the increase of 
positions authorized in the enacted budget for fiscal year 1995 and currently being 
filled in fiscal year 1996. The other two FTEs result ft-om the transfer of the AST 
from the Office of the Secretary to the FAA. The President's budget for fiscal year 
1997 includes a legal support position and a position supporting AST in the FAA 
contracts office against AST's FTE ceiling. For fiscal year 1996 and before, both this 
legal position and contract position were carried by the Office of the Secretary's 
Office of General Counsel and contracts office, respectively. With the transfer of 
OCST (now AST) to FAA, each of the FAA lines of business are expected to absorb 
the cost of resources that support the line of business. Both positions primarily 
support the licensing and safety areas. Thus, none of these five FTEs represent new 
staff"for fiscal year 1997. 

The President's budget for fiscal year 1997 requests two new positions (three 
new positions with a program decrease of one position). These two new positions 
along with the already approved positions will support the licensing and safety area. 
They will provide technical expertise in the technologies involved in designing and 
operating new launch vehicles. This expertise is necessary for evaluating and 
approving launches of aerospace vehicles and vital safety components and for 
developing federal regulations, standards, and policies that pertain to the licensing of 
launch and site operations. The five positions that will be filled during fiscal year 
1996 and the two new positions for fiscal year 1997 will all support the licensing and 
safety reviews required for new spaceports and launch systems. 

Question. What would be the cost above the fiscal year 1 996 base if the 
Committee were to provide only three FTEs, which would support the licensing and 
safety areas? 

Answer. The President's budget for AST for fiscal year 1997 shows $332,000 
for the annualization of the five positions in question. Thus, fijnding only the three 
new FTEs would result in a base of $5,837,000. Approval of the three new FTE 
(actually a net of only two new FTE because of the program decrease of one FTE) 
would result in a loss of at least two positions that support the licensing and safety 
areas in fiscal year 1996. This loss results from the fact that the other five FTEs 
shown in the budget request are for the annualization of three existing positions that 
directly support the licensing and safety areas and existing two positions that 
indirectly support these areas through the counsel and contract offices. Because 
counsel support is vital in ensuring legal sufficiency for a licensing program and a 
contract specialist is required due to the almost $3 million in contract resources used 
to support the licensing and safety area, neither of these positions could be eliminated. 



265 



Question. Please list for the Committee the four federal launch sites, the one 
existing non-federal launch site, and the one expected non-federal launch site to be 
added in fiscal year 1997. 

Answer. To date, nearly all DOT-licensed launches have taken place from the 
following four federal launch sites; 

Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida 
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 
Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia 
White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico 
In addition, two DOT-licensed launches took place from the Pacific Missile 
Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii. 

The following three non-federal (commercial) launch facilities located within 
the boundaries of federal launch sites are progressing toward being operational as 
early as 1997: 

Spaceport Florida Authority, Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida 
Western Commercial Space Center, Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California 
Virginia Commercial Spaceport, Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia 
In addition, the following two commercial spaceports are under development 
on non-federal land: 

Southwest Regional Spaceport (located on land adjacent to the White 

Sands Missile Range) 
Kodiak Launch Complex, Kodiak Island, Alaska 
Spaceport Florida Authority and Kodiak Launch Complex expect to be 
available for launches in March 1997. 

Question. Please provide for the Committee the responsibility of the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation when foreign vehicles are used to provide U.S. 
launch services. Are foreign launch vehicles allowed on U.S. launch sites? Does the 
Office of Commercial Space Transportation inspect foreign launch sites if they involve 
U.S. payloads? 

Answer. FAA's AST has authority to license and oversee launches conducted 
by US launch operator? anywhere in the world, regardless of whether the launches 
involve U.S. or foreign launch vehicles. Also, any person launching a launch vehicle 
from within the U.S. requires an FAA/DOT license. A U.S. citizen requires a license 
to launch a launch vehicle outside of the United States. A foreign entity controlled by 
a U.S. citizen requires a license to launch from international territory. For example, 
because of the controlling involvement of Boeing, a U.S. corporation, in the foreign 
Sea Launch Ltd. Partnership venture, Sea Launch must apply for and obtain a DOT 
license in order to launch a Ukrainian Zenit from international waters in the Pacific. 
AST does not have responsibility for foreign launch vehicles that are launched from 
foreign launch sites by persons who are not U.S. citizens, even if the launch involves a 
U.S. payload. 

The Office of Science and Technology Policy is working with the Departments 
of Defense, Commerce, Transportation, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration to develop a broad set of policy guidelines covering the relationship 
between spaceport entities and federal facilities. As part of this effort, these agencies 
are reviewing several legal and policy issues that must be addressed in considering 
whether a foreign launch vehicle could be launched from Cape Canaveral. One area 



266 



that needs to be more fully understood is the liability implications for the U.S. 
Government under federal statutes and international treaty obligations. Another issue 
is reciprocity. If the U.S. were to accept a foreign launch vehicle for commercial 
launches from U.S. territory, the U.S. may condition its willingness to do so on 
reciprocal access to the national facilities of the foreign manufacturer Finally, the 
U.S. must ensure that any proposed use of a foreign launch vehicle from a U.S. 
facility is fully compliant with our Missile Technology Control Regime, 
nonproliferation and arms control treaty commitments and our bilateral trade 
agreements. 

AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM (ASOS) 

Question FAA is participating in a multi-year project under which the 
National Weather Service (NWS) is developing and procuring ASOS. Each system is 
a cluster of eight sensors expected to jointly perform many tasks traditionally carried 
out by human weather observers, such as identifying types and amounts of 
precipitation. As of March 1, 1996, 52 of 537 systems had been commissioned, 
including 50 in the last year. It is reported that ASOS is experiencing problems in 
reporting accurate data As a result, weather observers are still needed. In fiscal year 
1997, FAA plans to continue commissioning systems procured through fiscal year 
1996. How are FAA and the NWS addressing ASOS accuracy problems? What is 
the status of these efforts? 

Answer Early problems with ASOS have been resolved through the joint 
efforts of FAA, the NWS and the production contractor Both FAA and NWS are 
proceeding with the commissioning of ASOS. FAA has developed an accelerated 
commissioning schedule which calls for the commissioning of all 537 systems by the 
end of fiscal year 1998. 

Last year, FAA, NWS, industry representatives and pilots participated in a six- 
month demonstration of ASOS at 22 operational and three non-operational ASOS 
sites. Based on the results of the demonstration, the NWS has determined that the 
representatives of ASOS weather reports were equal to those of human observers 
from 99 6 to 99.8 percent of the time in all flight categories. 

Question. Why is FAA continuing to commission sites when the system's 
problems have not been corrected and contractor weather observers - with an annual 
operating cost of $22.3 million — are still needed? 

Answer. FAA, in conjunction with NWS and industry representatives, has 
developed a new set of aviation service standards. These standards will establish the 
levels of surface weather observation service to be provided for U.S. airports. 

Based on the proposed standards, FAA would provide human augmentation 
and back-up of ASOS at 379 airports. Contract weather observers would be provided 
at 134 of the higher activity airports. Air traffic controllers would provide 
augmentation and back-up at another 245 airports. In addition, FAA and NWS plan 
to operate ASOS in a "stand-alone" mode of operation at another 403 airports. The 
latter category typically experiences lower levels of aviation activity and have never 
had federally-sponsored weather observation service. 

FAA currently funds contract weather observations at 189 locations at a cost 
of $22.3 million The majority of these airports are former flight service station 
locations, and fall into the lower activity category. Under the proposed approach, the 



267 



service at these airports would be phased out as ASOS is commissioned at those 
locations. 

Question. How will the automatic thunderstorm detection capability allow for 
the elimination of weather observers when ASOS still has problems detecting the 
difference between rain and sleet, and between heavy and light fog? 

Answer. NWS and the production contractor are developing software that will 
resolve the issue of "sleet or rain". This enhancement is expected to be available by 
fall of this year. The present ASOS weather sensors have been determined to 
appropriately detect the presence of fog. 

In meteorological terminology, the condition is reported as fog, without any 
distinction between heavy and light. The density of the fog phenomena would be 
reported or measured by the visibility value, that is., the denser the fog, the lower the 
visibility. The present ASOS weather sensors have been determined to appropriately 
detect the presence of fog. 

Effective October 1, 1996, thunderstorm detection will not be a pre-requisite 
to elimination of weather observers. The discontinuance of contract services will be 
based on new aviation service standards that have been developed by FAA, NWS and 
industry representatives. The proposed standards would provide for human 
augmentation and back-up of ASOS at the higher activity locations and would permit 
ASOS to operate in a "stand-alone" mode at airports in the lower activity category. 
FAA's ASOS program provides observations at 233 airports that do not presently 
have any federally-sponsored weather observation service. 

Question. Additional ASOS units were to fill requirements for non- 
towered/remote sites which require the observation capability provided by ASOS. 
The Committee notes that no procurement funding is requested in the FAA's fiscal 
year 1997 budget. The Committee is aware that the NTSB has identified several sites 
in Alaska and that several reputable aviation associations (National Association of 
State Aviation Officials, AOPS, National Business Aircraft Association) support the 
ASOS being deployed to approximately 228 such sites in the United States, and that 
55 of these sites are recommended for ASOS in calendar year 1997. What level of 
funding will be required to fijnd procurement of 55 ASOS units in fiscal year 1997? 

Answer. The FAA has not requested any funding for additional ASOS units in 
its fiscal year 1997 appropriations request. The $1.4 million fiscal year 1997 request 
would provide for ASOS commissioning activities in accordance with the accelerated 
commissioning schedule. The funding required to purchase, install and commission 55 
ASOS units is estimated to be $14.9 million. This cost includes program 
management, non-recurring implementation costs, as well as first year maintenance, 
and recurring costs. 

Question. What level of Operations and Maintenance funding is required to 
support installation and commissioning of 55 sites? 

Answer. FAA has not requested any funds to purchase any additional 
ASOS's. However, once systems have been installed and commissioned, the recurring 
cost to support the 55 systems is estimated to be $1 .7 million per year. 

Question Provide funding profiles, which will satisfy the remaining 
requirements (228 sites) in fiscal year 1998 and beyond. 



Answer. The FAA does not have any approved plans to purchase additional 
ASOS units beyond the 537 already purchased. The funding required to purchase, 
install and commission 228 ASOSs is estimated to be $61.6 million. This cost 
includes program management, non-recurring implementation costs, as well as first 
year maintenance, and recurring costs. 

Question. Could the maintenance of ASOS be affected in a more cost 
effective and efficient manner if contracted out on a competitive basis? Has FAA 
examined this possibility? To what extent, and with what results? If any analyses 
exist which address contracting out the maintenance of the facilities, please provide 
them to the Committee 

Answer. The FAA is currently reviewing the issue of total life-cycle support 
for its ASOS program. Our preliminary efforts to compare the alternatives suggest 
that maintenance can be accomplished in a more cost-effective manner. The 
alternatives under consideration include: continued NWS maintenance, FAA in-house 
maintenance, and contractor maintenance services. The least costly approach may be 
the combined use of two alternatives. FAA is working with NWS to resolve this 
issue The next step will be to conduct a detailed cost analysis to determine the most 
cost effective and efficient approach to maintaining ASOS. 

Question. The Committee understands that the ASOS Controller Equipment 
(ACE) subsystem is critical to full commissioning of ASOS. Also, that the shortfall of 
supplying ACE to currently deployed, but non-commissioned, sites is approximately 
$7 million to $8 million short and is part of the $25 million problem identified in the 
fiscal year 1996 conference report The Committee is aware that the controllers 
employee organization has recommended that ACE equipment be fijnded as soon as 
possible, with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 70 units annually. Is ACE ready 
for procurement and deployment? 

Answer. ACE is ready for procurement and deployment. ACE has undergone 
successful Phase II Operational Test and Evaluation at two airports in Oklahoma City, 
OK FAA has placed a "limited rate of production" order for 10 systems. ACE is 
neither critical nor essential to the commissioning of ASOS. ACE is an information 
display system used in terminal air traffic control facilities to display ASOS weather 
reports as well as other data pertaining to weather and airport conditions. 

Question. What are the costs associated with those levels (minimum 40 ACE 
and maximum 70 ACE)? Please provide a funding profile for fiscal year 1997 and 
beyond, until the ACE requirement is satisfied. 

Answer. The FAA is reviewing its requirements for terminal display systems. 
Once this assessment is completed, the results will be incorporated into the budgetary 
and scheduling process. The non-recurring cost for procurement of 40 ACEs is 
estimated to be $5.1 million and the recurring cost to maintain those systems is 
estimated to be $800,000. The estimated cost for procurement of 70 units would be 
$8.7 million non-recurring and $1.4 million recurring for maintenance. 

Question. What is the total requirement for ACE units? 

Answer. The FAA is conducting a review of its operational requirements for 
fijture terminal weather display systems Once this assessment is completed, the 
results will be incorporated into the budgetary and scheduling process At the 



269 



conclusion of this activity FAA will then be in a position to address the overall funding 
issue with representatives of the Appropriations Committees. 

Question The 1996 conference report (House Report 104-286) directed that 
the FAA provide to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, by December 
I, 1995, a report on the agency's plans to close the gap of installed versus 
commissioned sites, without interrupting the scheduled procurement of ASOS units. 
Additionally, the conference report directed that the $25 million worth of unfunded 
requirements to commission and maintain installed sites was to be satisfied by a 
reprogramming of non-ASOS funds. The Committee has not yet received the 
requested report Provide this report for the record. 

Answer The subject report is in final stages of executive review. FAA 
expects to deliver the report to Congress approximately June 21, 1996 

In March 1996, FAA initiated a procurement request for the acquisition of the 
remaining 106 ASOS units. FAA has developed a proposed accelerated 
commissioning schedule that would result in all 537 sites being operational by the end 
of fiscal year 1998 

FAA is currently conducting a review to evaluate budgetary priorities to 
determine what will be required to complete the accelerated commissioning schedule 
and to implement the remaining elements of the program. Once the evaluation is 
completed, FAA will be in a position to address the overall funding issue with 
representatives of the Appropriations Committees 

AIR TRAFFIC SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT: EN ROUTE, TERMINAL, 
AND TOWER PROJECTS 

Question The Air Traffic Systems Development Program includes the 
former Advanced Automation System (AAS) project that was restructured in 
June into three areas: en-route, terminal, and tower. In the en-route 
environment, FAA scaled back Initial Sector Suite System (ISSS) and 
renamed it the Display System Replacement (DSR) FAA terminated the AAS 
terminal program and is developing a replacement called the Stand-Alone 
TRACON Automation Replacement System (STARS) project. Why is FAA 
confident that DSR can be fielded on time and within cost, given the agency's 
past ISSS problems? 

Answer. The Government/contractor team has implemented a detailed 
cost/schedule control system which currently indicates that DSR is presently 
meeting all of its milestones early or on time and is within cost. Controlling 
change is a vital difference between ISSS and DSR One of the major 
discrepancies found in the AAS/ISSS program was the amount of functional 
changes that were being made even in the late stages of development. DSR 
has been controlling changes and has only experienced less than a 1 percent 
change in its functional requirements. 

Software development is complete and all systems integration 
milestones have been met. 

A test program that includes independent evaluation of the DSR 
system, an extensive set of risk reduction tests at the prime Contractor, as well 
as extensive formal developmental and operational testing will help ensure 
robust DSR design performance in the field. 



270 



Question. What impact will the additional STARS software development 
effort have on project cost and schedule? 

Answer. After evaluation of the contractors' proposals, the FAA will be able to 
determine whether there is any cost or schedule impact due to additional development. 
Current budget and schedule estimates were developed assuming that minimal 
software development would be required. 

Question. What is the status of the STARS procurement? Did FAA issue the 
development contracts on April 1? 

Answer. The STARS procurement is currently in the source selection phase. 
Vendor proposals have been received for the past performance, management and 
technical evaluations. The target date for STARS contract award is September 1996. 

The three Product Verification Test (PVT) contracts were issued in draft on 
March 1, and executed on April 1, 1996. These contracts initiate early software 
development for STARS requirements, and provide for the conduct of the PVT test. 

Question. Will FAA have adequate resources and technical skills to evaluate 
the various contractor efforts prior to making a production decision in October 1996? 

Answer. Yes. Highly qualified evaluation chairpersons, evaluators, and 
advisors have been assigned and are currently reviewing the vendor proposals. 

Question. Why is FAA confident that such an ambitious STARS deployment 
schedule can be achieved? 

Answer. The deployment schedule proposed in the request for proposal was 
generated to best satisfy operational requirements, and will represent a challenge to 
vendors. The STARS project office is in discussions with the FAA regions to 
evaluate the local implementation workload, and the impact of the STARS deliveries 
on other planned F&E activity. While preliminary indications from the STARS 
eligible vendors indicate that the STARS deployment schedule is achievable, the rate 
of deployment must be negotiated wdth the individual regions to provide the optimal 
compromise between improved functionality and regional resources. 

OREGON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWERS 

Question. There are two air traffic control towers in Oregon, Portland and 
Klamath Falls, that have experienced uneven progress. In the request for fiscal year 
1997, FAA has included $14.9 million for Portland for phase III facility construction. 
What have been the fijnds provided to date for the Portland tower. 

Answer. In fiscal year 1992, $1.0 million was provided for Portland and in 
fiscal year 1995, $7.7 million was provided for Portland. It is anticipated in fiscal year 
1997, that a total of $14.9 million may be needed to award a contract for Portland 
ATCT. An additional $7.5 million was to be requested in fiscal year 1997 and most of 
it to be combined vyath the $7.7 million of fiscal year 1995 for the award of the 
anticipated contract. The fiscal year 1997 President's Budget justification (pages 321- 
323) funding allocations have been revised. The corrected listing follows. 

Phase I funding of $2,378,000 is for seven terminal air traffic control facilities 
to be replaced in fiscal year 1997: 



271 



Texas Illinois Washington California Vir ginia 

Abilene East St. Louis Seattle (ATCT) Riverside Richmond 

$693,000 $25,000 $645,000 $202,000 $525,000 

Georgia Massachusetts 

Savannah Boston (TRACON) 
$288,000 $1,110,000 

Phase II funding of $5,163,000 is for 11 terminal air traffic control facilities 
started in fiscal year 1996 and before: 

Illinois Massachusetts New York Arkansas Texas 

Champaign Bedford Albany Little Rock Dallas (Addison) 

$25,000 $820,000 $1,917,000 $850,000 $640,000 

Kansas New York Virginia Virginia New York 

Salina Syracuse Newport News Roanoke Newburgh 

$184,000 $25,000 $74,000 $578,000 $25,000 

Texas 

Houston (Hobby) 
$25,000 

Phase III funding of $24,410,000 is for four terminal air traffic control facilities 
started in fiscal year 1995 and before. 
Alaska Oregon Utah Connecticut 



Merrill 


Portland 


Salt Lake City (TRACON) Windsor Locks 


$5,202,000 


$7,526,000 


$2,289,000 


$9,393,000 


Continuation 


funding of $41 


,339,000 is for 26 facilities started i 


n 1989 -1993 


Arkansas 


Texas 


New Mexico 


California 


Missouri 


Fort Smith 


Houston (lAH) 


Roswell 


Los Angeles St. 


Louis (ATCT) 








$1,295,000 


$1,335,000 


$1,966,000 


$3,987,000 


$1,130,000 


Pennsylvania 


Washington 


Alabama 


Montana 


Illinois 


Allentown 


Moses Lake 


Montgomery 


Helena 


Chicago (O'Hare) 


$225,000 


$871,000 


$3,659,000 


$90,000 


$104,000 


Minnesota 


Michigan 


Kentucky 


Puerto Rico 


Illinois 


Minneapolis 


Pontiac 


Covington 


San Juan 


Chicago (Midway) 


$550,000 


$677,000 


$481,000 


$660,000 


$680,000 


Kentuckv 


California 


Missouri 


California 


Alabama 


Louisville 


San Diego 


St Louis (ASDE) Santa Barbara 


Mobile (Brookley) 


$9,750,000 


$1,975,000 


$553,000 


$2,502,000 


$200,000 


Massachusetts Minnesota 


New York 


Maine 


Utah 


Worcester 


St. Paul 


Islip 


Bangor 


Salt Lake City 
(ATCT) 


$633,000 


$115,000 


$367,000 


$250,000 


$7,180,000 


Washington 










Everett 










$104,000 











Question. How have these funds been used? (Please describe ) 

Answer. To date, $1.07 million has been obligated in the Portland project 

These funds have been used for the site specific adaptation of the FAA Standard 

ATCT at Portland. The site adaptation was almost complete and the Port of Portland 

(Airport Authority) changed their mind on the way an access road would pass the new 



272 



tower location. This required the entire base building to be rotated. This delayed the 
project and required the FAA to redo the design of the base building associated with 
the new tower. 

The fiscal year 1995 funds, $7.7 million, provided for Portland is not enough 
for the construction award of the Portland tower. The original project for Portland 
was to replace the present tower with a 150 foot standard Welton Becket Design with 
a 6,000 square foot base building. However, the site selected for the new tower 
(sitting done by the Port of Portland), will require a 228 foot tower, of the Leo Daly 
design The estimate for the construction award and various equipment is $14.9 
million Additional funds of $7,526,000 will be required to proceed with the Portland 
project, as set forth in the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request. 

Question. What are the total estimated costs for the Portland air traffic 
control tower? 

Answer. The estimated total cost for Portland ATCT is estimated to be $18 
million. 

Fiscal Year 1992 appropriated = $1 million 

Fiscal Year 1995 appropriated = $7,724 million 

Fiscal Year 1997 request = $7.526 million 

Total to date $16,250 million 

Additional funding will be requested in future budget requests for the clean-up 
costs and some telecommunication costs. These costs are not anticipated to go over 
$1.8 million at this time. 

VOICE SWITCHING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (VSCS) 

Question. The VSCS replaces existing communication systems with an 
expandable, highly reliable system for both ground-to-ground, and air-to-ground 
communication A total of 22 sites are scheduled to receive VSCS. Eight sites have 
commissioned the initial VSCS. The air traffic controllers union reported early this 
year that VSCS is not as failure proof as FAA has advertised. The equipment has 
experienced failures lasting nearly one hour and 40 minutes. FAA advertised that 
VSCS would have failures of no more than three seconds per year. How valid are the 
union's VSCS reliability concern? 

Answer. VSCS is presently exceeding the product specification reliability 
requirement, that is, no more than three seconds per year of downtime due to system 
hardware failure. The calculated reliability in March 1996 exceeds the product 
reliability specification. 

The downtime at Seattle was not caused by a failure of the VSCS hardware. 
The one hour and 40 minute downtime included the time utilized by the site to analyze 
the problem, run debug tools, and restore the system to operations. The site 
transferred to the backup system, VSCS Emergency Access to Radios (VEARS) and 
then to the WECO 300 system. The total time that the facility was without air-to- 
ground communications was less than one minute. 

Question. Has FAA decided to reduce or terminate the contract on 
maintenance and engineering support for VSCS? Are the Airway Facilities 
technicians qualified to assume the responsibilities? 



273 



Answer. The FAA has always had confidence in the ability of the Airway 
Facilities technicians to assume responsibility for site maintenance after completion of 
the first year of contractor supplied maintenance and engineering support The 
contractor, Harris Transcomm, as part of the initial year of site maintenance 
responsibility was required to perform "on the job" training to supplement the 
extensive classroom training received by each of the Airway Facilities technicians. 
The FAA, through operations funding, will be able to provide an additional year of 
Harris Transcomm support, on an as needed basis, to each ARTCC per their unique 
requirements The need for contractor support determined by the site Air Traffic and 
Airway Facilities management in conjunction with union representation from the 
Professional Airways System Specialists (PASS) six months af^er Government 
Acceptance of the VSCS. During fiscal year 1996, contractor support has been 
retained at Denver, Salt Lake, Anchorage and Chicago. Seattle and Atlanta have 
determined that contractor support is not necessary. Ft. Worth is currently evaluating 
the need for contractor support. 

Question Would it be more prudent to wait until the upcoming upgrade to 
VSCS is completed and enough time has elapsed to ensure the system has completely 
accepted this modification? Shouldn't the contractor who developed this complex 
system make these upgrades and then test them adequately before turning the 
maintenance responsibility over to the FAA? 

Answer No. The VSCS has been operational at Seattle and Salt Lake since 
June 1995 and the FAA onsite technical personnel have considerable experience in the 
operation and maintenance of the system including the installation of software 
upgrades New upgrades utilize the same well documented procedures as previous 
upgrades, and undergo extensive testing by the FAA at the William J Hughes 
Technical Center, and key site testing at an operational facility prior to release. 

Question. What assurances can you provide the Committee that Airway 
Facilities personnel share the same level of expertise as those contractor-trained 
technicians? 

Answer. The Airway Facilities technicians have received between 14 
and 1 7 weeks of formal classroom training on the VSCS taught by Harris 
Transcomm instructors. This is the identical trairung that the Harris 
maintainors receive. Additionally, during the first year of contractor 
maintenance, the FAA technicians receive "on the job" training from the Harris 
maintainers and site engineers. In addition, the Airway Facilities workforce 
has access to additional specialized government and contractor engineering 
resources to troubleshoot any especially complex maintenance problems that 
might arise. Airway Facilities technicians ar6 required to be well trained and 
tested to obtain certification credentials in order to certify VSCS equipment 
for operation in the National Airspace System. 

Question. What is the amount of savings proposed by this substitution 
of personnel? 

Answer. There are no proposed savings since the FAA has always 
planned to transition VSCS maintenance to FAA technicians one year after 
Government acceptance of a system from the contractor All costs 
associated with the site maintenance of the VSCS after the first year of 



274 



contractor site maintenance are included in the operations and maintenance 
budget. 

Question Is the amount of savings worth the risks involved in 
removing the maintenance of this equipment from those with years of hands- 
on factory trained experience? 

Answer. The FAA has always planned to transition the responsibility 
for site maintenance on the VSCS from the contractor to Government after 
one year of contractor maintenance. The FAA and Harris Transcomm 
conducted an extensive series of training courses for the Airway Facilities 
Technicians. The Airways Facilities technician completes either a 14 week 
software course or a 12 week hardware maintenance course. Additional "on 
the job" training for the FAA maintenance staflT is provided during the first 
year of contractor maintenance. Prior to taking responsibility, the technician 
must pass a comprehensive skills exam and demonstrate competency on the 
system The training plus the competency exam reduces risk to a very 
acceptable level. 

Question. Have you identified alternatives to this approach? Should 
you defer this decision and take advantage of existing option clauses in the 
VSCS contract to extend contractor support until VSCS is fully installed, with 
all planned upgrades fully integrated? 

Answer The plan of providing one year of contractor maintenance of 
the system after Government acceptance with options for additional support as 
needed, was determined to be the most beneficial to the Government 

The need for additional contractor support is determined by the site Air 
Traffic and Airway Facilities management in conjunction with union 
representation from the PASS six months after Government Acceptance of the 
VSCS The FAA has the option to provide an additional year of contractor 
site maintenance on an as needed basis to each ARTCC per their unique 
requirements 

During fiscal year 1996, contractor support has been retained at 
Denver, Salt Lake City, Anchorage, and Chicago though at considerable 
reduced levels from the initial year of contractor maintenance Seattle and 
Atlanta have determined that no contractor support would be necessary. 

Question. Are additional Airway Facilities personnel being hired to maintain 
this system? 

Answer. No. The existing communication specialists have been trained to 
certify and maintain the VSCS. The VSCS is replacing ARTCC equipment and the 
maintenance hours used on the old equipment will be utilized for VSCS maintenance. 

The systems being replaced by the VSCS are the aging WECO-300 ground to 
ground switch and the aging 4-Channel Air/Ground radio equipment. 

WECO-300 is maintained by contractors and will continue to be maintained by 
contractors until removal. The Air Traffic and the Airway Facilities service directors 
signed a letter on December 29, 1995, requesting the removal of the WECO 
equipment four months after the VSCS operational readiness date. 



275 



The currently installed 4-Channel equipment is being considered for use as 
Air/Ground backup The A4-Channel is in stable operations, and maintenance 
activities do not require additional technicians be hired. 

Starting at CAI, Harris Transcomm is providing one year of F&E funded 
contractor maintenance for the VSCS. During this year of contractor maintenance, 
existing technicians are being trained and prepared to assume VSCS site maintenance. 

Question. Please list the sites at which VSCS will become operational 
in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. 

Answer The information follows; 
Fiscal Year 1996 

Atlanta 

Chicago 

Fort Worth 

Washington , 

Houston 

Boston 

Cleveland 

New York 

Kansas City 

Memphis 

Albuquerque 

Oakland 
Fiscal Year 1997 

Minneapolis 

Miami 

Los Angeles 

Indianapolis 

Jacksonville (Last site) 

RUNWAY INCURSION 

Question. Many NTSB recommendations concerning runway incursions 
remain open and the issue is still on the NTSB's "Most Wanted" list after many years. 
FAA's own records indicate that the number of "pilot deviations" is higher than it has 
been at any other time in the last seven years. Airports in other countries have dealt 
with the problem, and especially pilot deviations, by installing lighted "stop bars" to 
make sure aircraft and other vehicles do not get into the path of aircraft that are 
landing or taking off". Have you examined the systems at any of those airports or 
similar installations at U.S. airports, and have you ever considered requiring lighted 
"stop bars", at least at the largest U.S. airports? 

Answer. Yes Prior to 1992, the FAA did not permit aircraft to operate 
below 600 feet runway visual range (RVR). FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-57, 
Surface Movement Guidance and Control System, was published on September 4, 
1992. The AC provides guidance for airport operators to develop low visibility plans 
and prescribes the installation of certain lighting systems for visibility's below 1,200 
feet RVR According to the AC, stop bars should be installed in order to gain 
approval for operations below 600 feet RVR. 



276 



Air Traffic's present policy regarding the operation of stop bars is as follows: 

1 . Stop bars will not be operated on a 24 hour/day, seven days/week basis, 
primarily because of the substantially greater number of operations above 1,200 feet 
RVR and the associated increase in workload. Further, the number of controlled stop 
bars would increase substantially for a given runway. 

2. Air traffic has agreed to manually turn off controlled stop bars below 1,200 
feet RVR to confirm the verbal clearance to enter or cross the runway. Above 1,200 
feet RVR, stop bars are not illuminated. 

3. Controlled stop bars must reilluminate automatically without ATC input. 

4. During the design of the stop bar control system, the number of controlled 
stop bars must be kept to the absolute minimum required. 

Question. What were the results of that analysis? 

Answer. Heathrow has had manually controlled stop bars installed for over 20 
years The FAA does not have any data regarding the impact stop bars may have had 
on runway incursions or controller workload at Heathrow. The stop bars were 
installed when traffic conditions were considerably different. More recently, several 
generations of an Airport Movement Areas Safety System/ Airport Surface Detection 
Equipment (AMASS/ ASDE)-type system have been tested at Heathrow. The system 
is not yet incorporated into their air traffic control procedures as bugs are still being 
worked out of the system. We have learned that they view the surface movement 
radar as fulfilling a separate function as the stop bars and would be used in addition to 
the stop bars This calls into question the premise that stop bars alone should be used 
as a low cost alternative to AMASS and ASDE 

In an effort to gain operational experience with stop bars, to determine their 
impact on air traffic control, and determine if runway incursions could be reduced 
through their use, a stop bar system (consisting of three in-pavement and two elevated 
red lights located at each runway holding position) was demonstrated at John F. 
Kennedy International Airport. The results were not favorable, in part because of 
equipment problems. There were times when controllers would clear up to five 
aircraft to cross the runway simultaneously. The stop bar control system was not able 
to handle the simultaneous activation of several stop bars. As a result, air traffic 
controller workload increased and capacity was negatively affected. 

Two stop bars were installed at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on either 
end of the CAT III runway to permit them to operate below 600 feet RVR. The stop 
bar configuration complied with the new International standard for stop bars (a row of 
red lights across the entire taxiway on 10 foot spacing with green taxiway centerline 
lights leading onto the runway). The stop bars were operated below 1 ,200 feet RVR 
and pilot and controller reaction was favorable. The impact on controller workload 
was negligible because of the decreased traffic in the stated visibility's and only one 
stop bar was normally controlled. 

Question. Do you have any data on the costs of "stop bars"? 

Answer. The cost depends on a number of items such as the number of 
taxiways intersecting the runway, the width of those taxiways, and the number of 
controlled stop bars. We estimate that the cost for a manually controlled stop bar 
system may average somewhere between $2 million to $4 million per runway with 
stop bars installed at every taxiway/runway intersection. 



277 



Question Can stop bars satisfy the Committee's direction of last year to find 
low cost alternatives to AMASS and ASDE? 

Answer. The Committee direction last year was to investigate ground loop 
technology and to explore low-cost ASDE phased array radar technologies. A low- 
cost ASDE has been installed at General Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee for 
evaluation A continuous wave radar manufactured by ELTA will be installed at Salt 
Lake City Installation of a Dassault Electronics phased-array radar at Houston 
Hobby Airport is in process of negotiation. A contract to evaluate ground loop 
technology is in process to install this technology at either the Long Beach or Burbank 
airport 

The ASDE/ AMASS system is advisory and provides situation awareness to 
the air traffic controllers. The lighted "stop bars" technology is part of the "Surface 
Movement Guidance and Control Systems" (SMGCS) This system does not use real 
time surveillance data (ASDE) to control lights embedded on the runway/taxiway 
surface. These lights are used as a pilot aid to guide aircraft from/to the 
runways/ramps and are controlled by the air traffic specialists Therefore, lighted 
"stop bar" technology would not satisfy the Committee's direction for study 

GLOBAL POSITlbNING SYSTEM (GPS) AUGMENTATION SYSTEMS 

Question. FAA is developing the augmentation system necessary for civil 
aviation to optimize the benefits provided by the GPS. The Wide Area Augmentation 
System (WAAS) will provide navigation and landing for most phases of flight. Given 
the delays in the schedule for WAAS recently acknowledged by the FAA and the 
recent cancellation of the Wilcox contract, is it realistic to expect that the agency will 
require the fijll amount of funding requested ($74.5 million) in fiscal year 1997? 

Answer. Yes. Fiscal year 1997 funds are critical to continuing the WAAS 
development with Hughes Aircrafl Company, and minimize the overall schedule 
impact to delivery of an initial WAAS capability. 

Question. How did operating under the new acquisition rules affect the 
WAAS contract? 

Answer. The new acquisition rules did not affect the FAA's contract with 
Wilcox. Regarding the single source contract awarded to Hughes Aircraft Company, 
the new rules allowed FAA to save time getting to an award. 

Question What steps is FAA taking to ensure that the WAAS is on an 
acceptable schedule? 

Answer. The FAA WAAS team will provide a project manager and individual 
team leads to communicate with Hughes managers at the working level on a daily 
basis The FAA WAAS project manager will initiate monthly management meetings, 
starting in June, at the Hughes facility in Fullerton, CA, to ensure all technical, costs, 
and schedule plans and milestones are well-defined and will support the delivery of an 
initial WAAS capability in 1998. Technical interchange meetings are already 
underway to discuss details regarding the delivery of the Functional Verification 
System which is planned for summer fiscal year 1996. 



278 



Question. Could you please provide more details on the "test bed" and 
whether it has advantages over WAAS? Why did the agency award the WAAS 
contract last summer if the potential of the National Satellite Test Bed was known? 

Answer. The National Satellite Test Bed (NSTB) consists of the following 
components: 
-- 2 NSTB Master Stations, located at the William J. Hughes Technical Center. 

18 NSTB Reference Stations, located at automated flight service stations 
throughout the continental United States. 

- FTS-2000 terrestrial communications network connecting the ground locations. 

- Space communications consisting of geostationary satellites and ground uplink 
sites. 

The NSTB was not intended nor designed for operational use and does not 
meet FAA standards and requirements for a reliable operational navigation and 
landing system in the NAS. The WAAS contract was awarded to build a system to 
meet those operational requirements. The objective of the NSTB is to provide the 
FAA with the capability to independently evaluate, in parallel, the functions and 
processes being developed by the WAAS contractor and inject the results of these 
analyses into the WAAS development efforts. In addition, the NSTB signal will be 
used by manufacturers to continue development of avionics equipment. 

Question. The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) will provide 
navigation capabilities for the most demanding types of precision landings. What is 
the status of the comprehensive plan that DOT/FAA promised to complete by the end 
of February? Does the plan include LAAS schedule and cost estimates? 

Answer. The FAA's GPS transition plan will be completed in June 1996. The 
plan does not include any LAAS acquisition cost and schedule information. The FAA 
has decided not to move the LAAS program into an acquisition phase at this time. 
The FAA decided to do development and prototyping to lead to standards 
development to allow industry to develop COTS products. 

Question. On page 197 of your Operations budget justification, you expect 
that FAA will be commissioning three WAAS sites in 1997. Given the recent Wilcox 
contract cancellation, do you still believe that this is achievable in 1997? 

Answer. The Operations budget justification on page 97 addresses 
commissioning of navigation and landing aids for 209 navigation facilities, three of 
which will also receive components related to the WAAS. WAAS is planned to be 
commissioned as a single system across the United States. The FAA plans to 
commission the initial WAAS in 1998. 

FACILITY CLOSURE AND CONSOLIDATION 

Question. Please provide the Committee a listing of all those facilities which 
will either be closed, downsized, or consolidated in fiscal year 1996, and those that 
are planned in fiscal year 1997. 

Answer. In fiscal year 1996, the following facilities will be discontinued: 33 
VFR Towers, FAA Operated, one FAA Contract Tower, one Flight Service Station 
(FSS) (non-Alaskan), one Remote Communication Outlet (RCO) and 12 Visual 
Approach Slope Indicator (VASI). In fiscal year 1997, 16 Flight Service Stations 
(non-Alaskan) and two Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI), the locations for the 



279 



25 VFR towers, FAA operated will be determined jointly with National Air Traffic 
Controllers Association (NATCA) 

Tower services at Athens-Ben Epps, Georgia, and Eagle, Colorado, were 
initiated due to congressional mandates Neither location met benefit/cost (B/C) 
criteria and both were notified that continued funding beyond fiscal year 1996 would 
be dependent on meeting B/C criteria. The analysis is on-going. A decision is 
expected in June 1996. See information below fiar fiscal years 1996 and 1997 

Three locations are candidates fiDr not continuing in the FCT program in fiscal 
year 1997 Federal funding may be withdrawn for air traffic services at Chandler, 
Arizona; Fayetteville Drake, Arkansas; and Jackson, Tennessee. 

In fiscal year 1997, we plan to close the remaining CONUS flight service 
stations Listed below are the sites and their related AFSS facility. 



FYl 
FACILITY NAME 


996 

LOCATION 


VFR Towers 
FAA Operated (33) 


Bethel, AK 

Hutchinson, KS 

Central Nebraska, NE 

Joplin Regional, MO 

Rosecrans Memorial, MO 

Utica, NY 

Williamsport Lycoming, PA 

Meigs, IL 

Decatur, IL 

Janesville. WI 

Carbondale, IL 

Timmerman Field, WI 

Oshkosh, WI 

Rapid City, MI 

Cheyenne, WY 

Idaho Falls, ID 

Ogden, UT 

Olympia, WA 

Walla Walla, WA 

Albany, GA 

Craig, FL 

Page Field, FL 

Fulton County, GA 

St. Croix, PR 

Greenville Municipal, MS 

Fayetteville Drake, AR 


VPR Towers 

FAA Operated (33) cont. 


Santa Fe, NM 
Tyler, TX 
Fullerton, CA 
Goodyear, AZ 
Hawthorne, CA 
Sacramento, CA 
San Carlos, CA 



280 



VFR Tower/FAA Contract Tower (1) 


Cape Girardeau, MO 


Flight Service Station (1) 


Redmond, OR 


Remote Communication Outlet (1) 


Many, LA 


Visual Approach Slope Indicator (12) 


Birmingham, AL (2) 




Orlando, FL 




Monroeville, AL 




Titusville, FL (3) 




Bemidji, MN (3) 




Sioux Falls, SD 




Bismarck, ND 



FY 1997 1 


FACILITY NAME 


LOCATION 


Flight Service Station 


Salisbury, MD 


Non- Alaskan (16) 


Bradford, PA 




Debois, PA 




Marquette, MI 




Pierre, SD 




Bozeman, MT 




Redmond, OR 




Muscle Shoals, AL 




Crestview, FL 




Bowling Green, KY 




London, KY 




New Bern. NC 




Hickory. NC 


■ 


Areata. CA 




Marysville. CA 




Ukiah, Ca 


Visual Approach Slope Indicator (2) 


Boston, MA 




Bedford, MA 



281 



C/3 






~ 








1 — 




















C/3 


































< 




g 

o 


c 
o 


PQ 


a 


C/) 


00 


c 
o 
to 


1 


1 


'> 

CO 


GO 


•s 


j5 


1 


T3 
C 
cd 




C/5 
1> 


o 


o 


a> 


2 


s 


s 


'2 


c: 


3 


■3 


'S 


'S 


^ 


^ 




^ 


^ 


^ 


i-i 

o 


3 


O 


cB 


^ 


*c3 
O 


2 




h-1 


C3 




cd 




p^ 





^ 
















c« 




c 














HM 
















"5 




a> 














HJ 








♦ 








O 




u- 






















<u 








JS 


'> 
c/i 


O 




c 






^ 




D 
< 


3 

:§ 


PQ 


CO 

1 


■«-» 

3 
1 


pH 


B 

o 

PQ 


O 

B 


00 

o 

1/5 

1 


C30 

c 

o 

pa 


C 




H-1 


I-i 

<u 

PQ 






1 

b 


J2 


M 


































H 


































< 


































H 


































</) 




































i 


< 


< 


§ 


S 


S 


g 


^ 


tij 







Z 



:z; 


< 


< 




Z 


































O 


































)-^ 


































o 


































g 




































< 


< 


< 


C^ 


c^ 


1 


1 


o 

C/3 


o 

00 


o 

00 




00 








^ 


% 


^ 




< 


< 


_^ 


^ 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 



00 

00 



282 



Question. Please provide the Committee the latest listing of those air traffic 
control towers that do not meet the benefit/cost (b/c) criteria, along with their b/c 
ratio, to be continued, to be maintained by the FAA (similar to that found on pages 43 
and 44 of last year's hearing record). 

Answer. FAA policy is to fund locations which have a b/c ratio of 1.0 or 
greater The following locations do not meet FAA's b/c criteria: 

ATCT Not Meeting B/C Criteria 
State Location B /C Date B/C 

Georgia Athens-Ben Epps ' March 1995 0.63 

Arkansas Fayetteville Drake ^ July 1995 0.77 

California Lake Tahoe ^ January 1996 0.74 

Colorado Eagle ' March 1995 62 

Two facilities were new starts in fiscal year 1995. The B/C ratio will be 
calculated for each during the summer of 1996. If they do no meet the B/C criteria, 
Federal funding will be withdrawn for: 
State Location 

Arizona Chandler 

Tennessee Jackson 

' Congressionally mandated in fiscal year 1995. Funding decision beyond fiscal year 
1996 is dependent upon meeting B/C criteria. Analysis is on-going. A decision is 
expected in June. 

^ FAA Level I scheduled for conversion to contract operation in August 1996. On 
notice for falling below B/C minimum. Further decline in traffic is expected when 
Northwest Arkansas Airport is commissioned. A decision is expected in mid-fiscal 
year 1997 

' Administrator's decision to continue funding through fiscal year 1997, based on new 
operational data provided by the airport sponsor. 

AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR 

Question. Please update the Committee on the joint ASR- 1 1 program with the 
Department of Defense. 

Answer. The ASR- 11 /Digital Airport Surveillance Radar request for 
proposal was released in October 1995 Source selection is in progress, and the DOD 
contract award date is scheduled for July 1996. The FAA's best estimated 
procurement quantity is 48 systems. 

Question. In an answer to last year's questioning, it was estimated that DOD 
would schedule a contract award in December 1995. What is FAA's involvement 
with that program? What is FAA's estimated contribution, by years, for the ASR-1 1 
program? 

Answer. The FAA is a participant in the DOD's Digital Airport Surveillance 
Radar Program. Contract award has been rescheduled for July 1996. FAA's 
involvement with this program is as a joint partner with DOD to procure Non 
Developmental Item (NDI) Radars. Since this is an NDI procurement, the only 
anticipated developmental costs to be incurred are the joint development of the 
interfaces between the radar and applicable NAS systems The current estimate to 
complete this development effort is approximately $3.75 million. This activity will be 



283 



undertaken in fiscal year 1996. FAA and DOD will also conduct a joint test program 
resulting in a determination of the operational suitability of the NDI radar for both 
agencies The FAA is procuring two pre-production systems (one in fiscal year 1 996 
and one in fiscal year 1997) to support the joint full-scale development effort. The 
system FAA will procure in fiscal year 96 is planned to be installed at the FAA key 
site (Stockton, CA). This site complements the DOD key site (Eglin, AFB) allowing 
for operational testing in all types of environments (that is, weather, clutter, air 
traffic) The joint operational test program will be conducted during fiscal year 1997, 
FAA's estimated contribution by year will be determined at contract 
award At that time we will be able to determine production costs based on the 
negotiated contract cost and the number of systems procured. The current estimated 
total program cost is $502.3 million to procure up to 48 systems. 

Question. Please describe to the Committee the difference in the ASR-1 1 joint 
program with the DOD and the effort to digitize and upgrade the ASR-8 radars. 
Does FAA intend to pursue both of these efforts? If so, what is the cost/benefit 
analysis to date, and the key decision point reached in each of those two programs. 

Answer. The mission of the ASR-1 1 (or Terminal Radar Digitize, Replace and 
Establish) program is to provide digital radar input for the Standard Terminal 
Automation Replacement System (STARS), replacement for the aging, analog ASR- 
7's and ASR-8's, DOD takeovers, and for new establishments. 

The FAA Acquisition Review Committee and the DOT Transportation 
Systems Review Council approved the fijil scale development of the ASR- 1 1 to 
procure two systems to determine operational suitability 

All alternatives considered were assumed to have the same benefit, therefore a 
cost effectiveness study was performed. This study showed the ASR-7 radars needed 
to be replaced due to aging conditions and parts unsupportability 

The FAA is conducting an alternative analysis to determine whether to 
upgrade or replace the ASR-8 radars. A decision on whether to upgrade or replace 
the ASR-8 radars will be made at the time of the ASR-1 1 production decision which 
is scheduled for November 1998. 

Question. Please update the Committee on the ASR-9 windshear processor 
program Please list all those airports that have been commissioned or are scheduled 
to receive the windshear processor to their already-existing ASR-9s. 

Answer The research on the airport surveillance radar (ASR) weather system 
processor (WSP) has been completed. The FAA is now ready to enter a three-year 
effort to design, develop, and test the first article WSP. 

Thirty-four potential WSP sites were identified in a cost benefit study 
conducted in 1994. This study is scheduled tp be updated by the end of the year. The 
34 sites are: 

Austin, TX Rochester, NY 

Albuquerque, NM Syracuse, NY 

San Antonio, TX Charleston, SC 

Jacksonville, FL Lubbock, TX 

Sarasota, FL Richmond, VA 

Buffalo, NY Grand Rapids, MI 

Tucson, AZ Gainesville, FL 

El Paso, TX Harrisburg, PA 



284 



Birmingham, AL Providence, RI 

Los Angles, CA Ontario, CA 

Greensboro, NC Islip, NY 

Hartford, CT Brownsville, TX 

Norfolk, VA Huntsville, AL 

Daytona Beach, FL Knoxville, TN 

Honolulu, HI Ft. Wayne, IN 

Des Moines, lA Madison, WI 

Albany, NY Cedar Rapids, I A 

METROPLEX CONTROL FACILITIES 

Question. Please provide the Committee the cost/benefit analysis for each of 
the four new metroplexes (Potomac, Northern California, Atlanta, and Central 
Florida). Also provide the anticipated costs and anticipated user benefits 

Answer. The cost/benefit analysis for various alternatives of the new 
proposed facilities are in different stages of completion. The Northern California 
Metroplex cost/benefit analysis was completed in January 1996. The cost/benefit 
analysis for the Atlanta Metroplex will be completed in September 1996 and the 
cosl^enefit analysis for the Potomac Metroplex is estimated to be completed in 
December 1996 Development of staff studies have begun for Central Florida and 
New York, but cost/benefit analysis efforts have not yet started. It is really a question 
of what we can afford and are there ways that we can get benefits to the users without 
incurring the large capital costs of consolidating facilities. 

Initial cost/benefit analysis and TRACON planning were based upon a finite 
report of August 1993 called Estimated User Benefits FAA Approach Control 
Consolidation Options Nine Selected Metroplex Locations Final Report. This report 
helped rank the implementation order for the new proposed facilities based upon 
projected user benefits. The August 1993 report provided indicators of potential 
benefit based on a limited number of alternatives but did not thoroughly examine 
maximum FAA benefits and Customer benefits. As a result, the cost/benefit analyses 
for Atlanta and Potomac have to be redone. The new analysis includes better airspace 
analysis made available with advanced airspace modeling and simulation tools The 
new analysis, driven by severe budget constraints, more fully investigates other 
alternatives which might provide most of the benefits from full consolidation but 
require smaller capital investments. The completed Northern California cost/benefit 
analysis, which is summarized below, was completed and approved by the FAA in 
January 1996. 

Northern California TRACON Cost-Benefit Analysis and Update Results 
The Northern California TRACON Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) examined three 
scenarios designed to increase the capacity and efficiency of the air traffic control 
system in the Northern California area. The CBA focused on the following five 
facilities located in this area: Oakland (BAY) Terminal Radar Approach Control 
(TRACON) facility, Sacramento (MCC) TRACON, Stockton (SCK) TRACON, 
Monterey (MRY) TRACON and Travis Air Force Base (SUU) Radar Approach 
Control (RAPCON). The three scenarios were defined as follows: 
Alternative 1 Examined the effects of consolidation of facility operations and 

terminal airspace of BAY, MCC, SCK, MRY, SUU and three 
Oakland Center (ZOA) sectors into a single facility. Airspace 



285 



would be resectorized and raised to 15,000 feet to permit 
"seamless" operation in the expanded terminal area. This analysis 
was prepared on an incremental basis, that is, option A evaluated 
the costs and benefits of consolidating BAY, SUU, MCC, and 
ZOA sectors 1 1/40/41; option B evaluated the costs and benefits of 
adding SCK to option A; option C evaluated the costs and benefits 
of adding ZOA sectors 11, 40 and 41 to option B; and option D 
evaluated full consolidation in 2000. In each option, the standalone 
TRACONs that did not consolidate were upgraded with new 
facilities and equipment. 
Alternative 2 Examined the effects of maintaining BAY, MCC, SCK and MRY 

as standalone facilities. Control of SUU airspace would be 
transferred to MCC and ZOA sectors 1 1 , 40 and 4 1 would be 
transferred to BAY and the airspace ceiling raised to 15,000 feet 
This alternative assumed the construction of new facilities for 
BAY, MCC, SCK and MRY and the acquisition of new equipment 
such as STARS and ETVS for each new facility The four 
TRACONs would receive new facilities in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 
2007, respectively. In this alternative, each standalone TRACON 
would be responsible for its designated airspace. 
Alternative 3 Examined the effects of delaying the consolidation of the facility 

operations and terminal airspace for BAY, MCC, SCK, MRY, 
SUU and the three ZOA sectors from 2000 to 2005. TRACON 
operations would be sustained in their current facilities and both 
facility and equipment would be upgraded as necessary to meet 
operations until full consolidation in 2005. Each facility would be 
responsible for its airspace until consolidation. 
Alternative 4 Examined the effects of consolidation of facility operations and 

terminal airspace of MCC, SCK, and SUU into a single facility. 
Airspace would be resectorized to permit "seamless" operation in 
the expanded terminal area. BAY would absorb the ZOA sectors. 
Both BAY and MRY would remain in their current facilities with 
major rehabilitation and/or construction required. New equipment 
such as STARS and ETVS would be installed in each facility. 
Reference Case was the baseline against which Alternatives 1, 2 
and 3 would be evaluated. It analyzed the costs and benefits of 
"doing nothing". It assumed that BAY, MCC, SCK, and MRY 
would remain in their current facilities with their existing 
equipment and current (1995) staffing levels. The FAA would 
assume responsibility for SUU airspace in 2000 and the ZOA 
sectors would remain in the center. 
The December, 1995 ARC meeting eliminated Alternatives lA, IB, IC, 3, and 4 from 
further analysis due to higher costs. Two alternatives remained for further analysis: 
full consolidation (alternative ID) and no consolidation (alternative 2). It was noted 
that additional information on the costs associated with employee turnover was 
required in order to clarify the costs of maintaining a TRACON in the Bay/Oakland 
area. In addition, the ARC asked the program manager to examine the funding profile 
in detail and to bring it down to the lowest, yet manageable, level possible. Year-by- 
year cost profiles and information on payback period were also requested for the 



January follow-up ARC. Finally, a more realistic reference case that reflected national 

equipment programs was requested. An addendum was prepared to reflect the 

analysis presented to the January 16, 1996, KDP-2/4 ARC of the Northern California 

MCF Program. The purpose of the addendum was to update the life-cycle costs for 

the two selected alternatives to include the cost of "turnover" and to present a 

"minimal" flinding profile. The alternatives presented at the January ARC were; 

Alternative ID Examined the effects of consolidation of facility operations and 

terminal airspace of BAY, MCC, SCK, MRY, SUU and the three 

ZOA sectors into a single facility. Airspace would be resectorized 

and raised to 15,000 feet to permit "seamless" operation in the 

expanded terminal area. In this alternative, consolidation was 

completed in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. 

Alternative 2 Examined the effects of maintaining BAY, MCC, SCK and MRY 

as standalone facilities. Control of SUU airspace would be 

transferred to MCC and ZOA sectors 11 , 40 and 4 1 would be 

transferred to BAY and the airspace ceiling raised to 15,000 feet. 

This alternative assumed the construction of new facilities for 

BAY, MCC, SCK and MRY and the acquisition of new equipment 

such as STARS and ETVS for each new facility. The four 

TRACONs would receive new facilities in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007 

respectively In this alternative, each standalone TRACON would 

be responsible for its designated airspace. 

Reference Case was the baseline against which Alternatives ID and 

2 would be evaluated It analyzed the costs and benefits of 

remaining in current facilities with the addition of temporary 

trailers for transition and/or staffing growth. It assumed that BAY, 

MCC, SCK, and MRY would receive upgraded equipment. In 

addition, growth in Air Traffic (AT) requirements would be 

accommodated. The FAA would assume responsibility for SUU 

airspace in 2000 and the ZOA sectors would remain in the 

ARTCC 

Based on the results of the cost-benefit analysis using the most likely cost and benefit 

scenarios, alternative ID had the lowest life-cycle cost. The following table shows the 

life-cycle costs. 

Constant, 1995 $ Million PV $ Million 



Alternative 


F&E 


O&M 


Total 




F&E 


O&M 


Total 


Reference Case 


58 


1931 


1989 




41 


701 


742 


Alt ID 


96 


1623 


1719 




73 


622 


695 


Alt 2 


100 


1653 


1753 




71 


631 


702 



User benefits for the NCT project were estimated by drawing data from several 
sources, including FAA and Washington Consulting Group studies. A 2.4 percent 
growth rate was applied to the benefit stream each year throughout the life cycle. 
For the purposes of this estimate, benefits for alternative 1 began in the year 2001 
upon full consolidation of the five facilities and three low altitude sectors and the 
complete redesign of the airspace. 

The Washington Consulting Group's (WCG) report entitled, Estimated User 
Benefits FAA Approach Control Consolidation Options Nine Selected Metroplex 
Locations, dated August 12, 1993, provided initial comparisons for NCT current and 
proposed airspace configuration. The WCG analysis, approved by the FAA, 



287 



maintained that consolidation and airspace reconfiguration can be of benefit to general 
aviation business jet, commuter, air carrier and military operations. According to the 
study, more efficient flight profiles (for example, routes and altitudes) occur with 
consolidation, thus generating fuel and cost savings. A potential but unquantified 
benefit to consolidation was the probable establishment of dual departure routes 
surrounding the existing facilities. The existence of a dual departure route leads to a 
reduction in ground delay for air carrier wide body aircraft, air carrier narrow body 
aircraft, and general aviation business jet aircraft. The WCG study addressed savings 
only for the "Full Consolidation" scenario (Alternative ID). 

The Northern California TliACON Airspace Benefits Assessment, prepared by 
the Operations Assessment Division, Voipe National Transportation Systems Center 
(VNTSC) of the US. Department of Transportation, dated June 7,1995 built upon the 
analyses conducted by the WCG and the Northern California Study, prepared by the 
FAA, Western Pacific Region, dated March 1994, by constructing a comprehensive 
breakdown of savihgs^enefits for each alternative (and option) User benefits were 
measured in terms of incremental benefits over the "Baseline/Reference" alternative 

The analysis of the Baseline alternative identified BAY as the most critical 
TRACON in meeting the growth in terminal area traffic. Calculations of benefits of 
improved (reduced) aircraft operating costs and passenger time savings were based on 
daily operations and the "weighted average cost of aircraft operations" by aircraft 
class. "Weighted average cost of aircraft operations" was derived from the aircraft 
operating costs per hour and the weighted average percentage (of airborne hours) of 
each aircraft type within the respective aircraft class (FAA-APO-93-1). Annual 
aircraft operating costs and passenger time savings were based on an "assumed 
number of days of operation per year". 

Due to the revised reference case and adjusted life-cycle costs for Alternatives 
ID and 2, cost savings estimates were re-calculated in the CBA addendum. Cost 
savings to the FAA were defined as benefits by FAA guidelines. Operations and 
maintenance costs in the reference case were estimated to be $701 million in present 
value terms. However, operations and maintenance costs in alternative ID were 
estimated to be $622 million in present value, which yields a cost savings of $79 
million in present value. The largest cost savings driver was Airway Facilities staffing. 



Benefit s Comparison (Present Value in Millions of D ollars) 



PV$M 


Alt ID 


Alt 2 


Cost Savings 


79 


70 


User Benefits 


72 


* 



•marginal, unquantified benefits 

Alternative ID had the lowest life-cycle cost, while alternative 2 had the highest, as 

shown in the following table. 

Life Cycle Cost Components (Present Value in Millions of Dollar) 



F&E 


Reference Case 


Alt ID 


Alt 2 


Facilities 


1 


26 


31 


Equipment 


30 


26 


25 


Other F&E 


10 


21 


15 


Subtotal F&E 


41 


73 


71 



288 



Life Cycle Cost Components (Present Value in Millions of Dollar) 
(Continued) 



F&E 


Reference Case 


Ah ID 


Alt 2 


O&M 








AT Staffing 


415 


405 


416 


AF Staffing 


151 


102 


94 


Utilities & Other 


9 


9 


7 


Recurring Telecomm 


18 


19 


19 


NAILS 


46 


44 


46 


Technology Refresh 


28 


18 


17 


Turnover Costs 


26 


22 


26 


Other O&M 


8 


3 


6 


Subtotal O&M 


701 


622 


631 


TOTAL Life Cycle Cost 


742 


695 


702 



After the life cycle cost estimates were completed for each alternative, all scenarios 
were compared to the reference case. Airspace realignment benefits included those 
obtained by the user through improved routes and also by the passenger through 
shorter travel times. The following table illustrates the results of this analysis. 
Airspace Realignment Benefits 



PV (Dollars in Millions) 


Alt ID 


Alt 2 


Net Cost Increase (F&E) 


32 


30 


Cost Savings (O&M) 


79 


70 


Airspace Realignment Benefits 






w/o Passenger Time Savings 


30 


* 


w/ Passenger Time Savings 


72 


* 



* Marginal, unquantified benefits 

The benefit-to-cost ratio was obtained by dividing the total benefits by the net cost 
increase. Net present value was calculated by subtracting the net cost increase from 
the benefits. The costs and benefits shown above result in the following benefit-cost 
ratios and net present values for Alternatives ID and 2: 
Alternatives ID and 2 Data 

B/C Ratio NPV ($M) 





Alt ID 


Alt 2 




Alt ID 


Alt 2 


Cost Savings Only 


2.5 


2.3 




47 


40 


w/o Passenger Time Savings 


3.4 


2.3 




77 


40 


w/ Passenger Time Savings 


4.7 


2.3 




119 


40 



The results of the cost-benefit analysis and addendum indicated that consolidation for 
the Northern California TRACON Program was economically justified. More 
specifically, the analysis suggested that Alternative ID was the most cost beneficial, 
with a net present value of $47 million dollars and a B/C ratio of 2.5 when only FAA 
cost savings were considered Alternative ID appeared even more beneficial when the 
other benefit categories of user benefits and passenger time savings were included. 

The most likely ftinding profile for Alternative ID is illustrated in the following 
table. The profile does not include PCS nor the costs of personnel, compensation, 
benefits and travel (Activity 5) incurred by FAA personnel associated with the project. 
STARS, displays and digitizers have also been excluded from the profile because they 
were fiinded under diffijrent CIP projects. The figures are presented in current (then 
year) dollars. 



Funding Profile for Alternative ID in 


Millions 


of Current Dollars 




Current 
$M 


1995 


1996 


1997 


1998 


1999 


2000 


2001 + 


Total 


Alt ID 


1.5 


38 


9.2 


22.9 


24.0 


5.5 


3.2 


70.2 


PCS 












97 




9.7 


STARS 










15.5 


4.5 




20.0 



Question Last year, FAA stated that the Potomac Metroplex was chosen as 
the first of four metroplexes to go forward because of an expected shortfall in air 
space capacity Please list the measure for shortfall in air space capacity for each of 
the four new metroplexes 

Answer Airspace capacity shortfall measurements for each of the four new 
facilities were based upon the level of potential user benefits possible with each 
facility An FAA sponsored independent study. Estimated User Henefits FAA 
Approach Control Consolidation Options Nine Selected Metroplex Locations Final 
Report, published in August 1993 linked user benefits with the level and type of air 
traffic and complexity of the airspace (that is, airspace capacity factors). This report 
continues to receive scrutiny among FAA officials. The August 1993 report 
calculated potential user benefits based upon aircraft operating cost savings, passenger 
value of time savings, and fuel savings resulting from new flight profiles made possible 
by facility consolidation. Over a 20-year period the discounted present value in 
millions of dollars (1993) for the four new facilities were as follows: 

Potomac $156.1 million 

Northern California $1 10.0 million 

Atlanta $ 49.2 million 

Central Florida $ 36. 1 million 

Based upon the August 1993 report, and relative complexity of the airspace structures 
associated with each of the proposed TRACONs, the Potomac Metroplex was initially 
selected to go forward first. Since the report was published its findings have been 
subject to controversy. Budget predictions have also become severe. This has 
resulted in new separate cost/benefit analysis with various alternatives being 
conducted for each of the proposed facilities These new cost/benefit analyses are at 
different stages of completion and also consider additional factors such as FAA 
operating costs, yearly capital investment and total capital investment. It is really a 
question of what we can afford and are there ways that we can get benefits to the 
users without incurring the large capital costs of consolidating facilities. 

The NCT project anticipated airspace and procedural efficiencies to be 
inherent with the consolidation of facilities. These efficiencies are one goal of the 
airspace study currently underway The NCT project, however, is justified by the 
internal cost savings to the FAA since three of the four facilities require replacement, 
regardless of airspace considerations. The Northern California TRACON has been 
selected to go forward based upon direct benefits to the FAA as shown in its 
cost/benefit analysis, approved by the agency in January 1996. 

AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS) 



Question Please update the Committee on the revalidation of the program 
cost estimate for AMASS that was expected in June 1995. 



290 



Answer. The program cost revalidation has been completed and is 
currently under review. As a result of this revalidation effort, additional funding may 
be required in the outyears to fund program cost growth. 

Question. Please provide the committee a listing of those locations that 
currently have installed the AMASS equipment and the expected commissioning 
dates, including the 14 locations that were to receive funding in fiscal year 1997. 

Answer. Currently, a prototype AMASS system is installed at Boston Logan 
to support demonstration/validation of Runway Status Lights (RWSL). Another 
prototype system is installed at Atlanta Hartsfield to support demonstration/ validation 
of Airport Surface Target Identification System (ATIDS). A pre-production AMASS 
system is installed at San Francisco International Airport for air controllers 
operational evaluation. Commissioning dates can vary, but generally they follow 
installation by about a year The currently planned delivery dates (subject to funding 
availability) for AMASS systems through those to be funded in fiscal year 1997 
follow. 

Location Delivery Date 

Detroit MI May 1997 

St. Louis MO July 1997 

Atlanta GA September 1997 

Dallas/Ft Worth TX February 1998 

Boston MA March 1998 

FAA Academy OK March 1998 

F AA Technical Center NJ May 1 998 
Los Angeles #2 CA May 1998 

Los Angeles #1 CA June 1998 

Chicago IL June 1998 

Washington National DC* April 1999 
Portland OR* April 1999 

JFK NY* May 1999 

Seattle WA* May 1999 

Philadelphia PA* June 1999 

Pittsburgh PA* , June 1999 

LaGuardiaNY* July 1999 

Miami FL* July 1999 

Kansas City MO* August 1999 

Cleveland IL* August 1999 

Denver #1 CO* September 1999 

Denver #2 CO* September 1999 

Houston #1 TX* October 1999 

Houston #2 TX* October 1999 

* 14 locations to receive requested fianding in fiscal year 1997 



Question. Please provide a cost estimate or budget request for the amount of 
money spent for AMASS in fiscal year 1996 and that will be requested for the out 
years for the AMASS program. 

Answer. The amount of ftinding obligated in fiscal year 1996 is $3.8 million. 
Another $14 million will be obligated for fijll scale development by June 30, 1996. 
The funding requirement for the outyears is currently under review. 



291 



FLIGHT INSPECTION AIRCRAFT 

Question: Please provide the Committee an updated listing of FAA's flight 
inspection aircraft, similar to that found on page 132 of Senate hearing 104-76, part 
2. Also, please provide the Committee a listing of any aircraft expected to be 
disposed of, and new aircraft expected to be purchased in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. 

Answer: A listing (as of May 13, 1996) of flight inspection aircraft, planned 
disposition and new aircraft delivery schedule follows: 



FLIGHT INSPECTION AIRCRAFT 







"N" 


Serial 


Manuf. 


Age 


Type 




No. 


Number 


Date 


Years 


Bccchcraft 300 




N73 


FF8 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N74 


FF9 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N82* 


FF17 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N84 


FF19 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft F-90 




N18 


LA- 145 


1981 


15 


Bccchcraft 300 




N75 


FFIO 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N79 


FF14 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N83 


FF18 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N76 


FFll 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N77 


FF12 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N78 


FF13 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N81 


FF16 


1988 


8 


British Aerospace 


800A 


N94 


258129 


1988 


8 


British Aerospace 


800A 


N95 


258131 


1988 


8 


British Aerospace 


800A 


N98 


258156 


1988 


8 


British Aerospace 


800A 


N96 


258134 


1988 


8 


British Aerospace 


800A 


N97 


258154 


1988 


8 


British Aerospace 


800A 


N99 


258158 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N66 


FFl 


1987 


9 


Bccchcraft 300 




N67 


FF2 


1987 


9 


Bccchcraft 300 




N68 


FF3 


1988 


8 


Sabrclincr NA-265-80 


N53 


380-14 


1974 


22 


Sabrclincr NA-265-80 


N60** 


380-28 


1975 


21 


Sabrclincr NA-265-80 


N62** 


380-31 


1975 


21 


Lcarjct-60 




N55 


60-013 


1993 


3 


Bccchcraft 300 




N69 


FF4 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N70 


FF5 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N71 


FF6 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N72 


FF7 


1988 


8 


Bccchcraft 300 




N80 


FF15 


1988 


8 



Total Aircraft 



30 



* Disposal of wreckage pending release from NTSB and clearance by agency's legal 

counsel. 

** Disposal action pending on N60 and N62. 



292 



Planned aircraft Disposal 



Aircraft 


Registration 


Planned 


Type 


Number 


Disposal 


BE-300 * 


N82 


FY-96 


Sabre 80 


N53 


FY-96 


Sabre 80 ** 


N60 


FY-96 


Sabre 80 *** 


N62 


FY-96 



* Disposal of wreckage pending release from NTSB and clearance by agency's legal 

counsel 

** N60-Removed from service on April 30, 1996. Disposal action in process. 

*** N62-Removed from service on February 1, 1996. Disposal action in process 



FY 1996 and FY 1997 New Aircraft Delivery Schedule 



Aircraft 


Anticipated 


Fiscal 


Type 


Delivery 


Year 


MSR#1 


January 1996 


FY-96* 


MSR#2 


August 1996 


FY-96 


MSR#3 


August 1996 


FY-96 


MSR#4 


September 1996 


FY-96 


MSR#5 


November 1996 


FY-97 


LSR#1 


June 1996 


FY-96 


LSR#2 


May 1997 


FY-97 



* Delivered 

MSR-Learjet 60 (medium size/range) 

LSR-Canadair 60 IR (large size/long range) 



293 



UNIVERSAL ACCESS FOR FLIGHT CREWS 

Question. Please update the committee on the universal access system (UAS) 
program. The six-month test of the universal access system was scheduled to begin in 
August 1995. What have been the results to date? 

Answer. The UAS test is still in progress. While the UAS test program was 
scheduled to commence in August 1995, it was delayed due to contracting and labor 
problems experienced by air carrier and airport test participants Unable to resolve 
some of these issues, one of the test sites was relocated from Atlanta's Hartsfield 
International Airport to Miami International Airport. The final test configuration 
involves Delta Air Lines at Miami International Airport and Northwest Airlines at 
Detroit Metropolitan Airport, with the potential for both air carriers' flightcrews to 
have the ability to use UAS portals at either airport. 

The UAS test was initiated at the Miami International Airport in January 1 996 
and at Detroit Metropolitan Airport in March 1996. Preliminary test results are 
positive, particularly for the most complex test configuration involving Delta Air Lines 
and Miami International Airport. The Miami site required the integration of the 
airport's access control system and the centralized database operated by Delta Once 
initiated, this portion of the test exceeded the FAA's and test participants expectations 
(especially Delta's flightcrews), and has run relatively problem free. Test results and 
analysis from both test sites and participating air carriers are anticipated by September 
1996. 

The FAA plans to provide UAS test results to the Aviation Security Advisory 
Committee (ASAC). In coordination with the ASAC, the FAA will use these test 
results to evaluate the draft UAS standards and adjust them accordingly. 

OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM 

Question Please update the Committee on the competitive procurement 
contract awarded to the Oceanic Automation System in 1995. Are all the 
administration's requested fijnds going for the completion of the oceanic data link 
at all three locations? 

Answer In September 1995, the Oceanic System Development and Support 
(OSDS) contract was competitively awarded to Hughes Aircraft Company This 
effort will develop, produce and sustain an Advanced Oceanic Automation System 
(AOAS), and maintain existing systems until they are replaced The AOAS will 
replace the Oceanic Display and Planning System (ODAPS) flight data processing 
hardware and software with open system architecture components and revamped 
computer/human interface features. The AOAS flight data processor hardware and 
software will be delivered and incrementally upgraded in a series of builds. The status 
of the builds are as follows: 

-- Build 1 (Oceanic Data Link): First Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is 
scheduled for July 1998 at Oakland Center. 

- Build 2 (Flight Data Processor replacement): Requirements development to be 
completed June 1996. 

" In fiscal year 1997, the administration's requested funds will be used as follows 
(amounts are approximate): 



294 



— $18 million will be used for Build 1, including completion of the oceanic data link 

at all three locations and re-host of the Dynamic Oceanic Track System. 

~ $20 million will be used for Build 2, including development of the flight data 

processor replacement and Conflict Probe enhancements. 

~ $2 million will be used to begin to develop requirements for Build 3 (controller 

productivity tools). 

Question Please provide a historical summary of the amount appropriated to 
date for the Oceanic Automation System, and the amount of funds obligated by year. 
Answer. Obligation data in the following table are as of April 30, 1996: 
Oceanic Automation System Financial Profiles 





Appropriations 


Obligations 


Prior Years 


$ 16.300,000 


$ 16,154,000 


1994 


25,282,000 


25,393,000' 


1995 


36,300,000 


34,992,021 


1996 


47,100,000 


1,623,375 



$.545 million has been internally reprogrammed into this program. 

In addition, approximately $34.8 million ($400,000 fiscal year 1995, $34.4 
million fiscal year 1996) is planned for obligation within the next 60 days. 

TERMINAL AUTOMATION PROGRAM 

Question. Please list the three sites that will be receiving the STARS displays 
in fiscal year 1997. Provide • the Committee a schedule for STARS display 
implementation in the outyears. 

Answer STARS systems and displays will be ordered with fiscal year 
1 997 funds The first three STARS systems, complete with displays, will be delivered 
to Boston and the William J. Hughes Technical Center (two systems) in fiscal year 
1997, as limited production systems. Complete STARS schedule below. 





Deliver 


Region 








Academy (AF) 


2/98 


HQ 


Academy (AT) 


2/98 


HQ 


Tech Center 
(SCSC) 


4/98 


HQ 


Boston 


2/98 


ANE 


OSF (NE Region) 


2/98 


ANE 


OCC (NE Region) 


2/98 


ANE 


OCC (National) 


2/98 


HQ 


Philadelphia 


5/98 


AEA 


OSF (EA Region) 


5/98 


AEA 


OCC (EA Region) 


5/98 


AEA 


No. Georgia T/R 


10/98 


ASO 


OSF (SO Region) 


10/98 


ASO 


OCC (SO Region) 


10/98 


ASO 



295 



Houston 


4/99 


ASW 


OSF (SW Region) 


4/99 


ASW 


OCC (SW Region) 


4/99 


ASW 


Detroit 


6/99 


AGL 


OSF (GL Region) 


6/99 


AGL 


OCC (GL Region) 


6/99 


AGL 


No. California T/R 


6/99 


AWP 


OSF (WP Region) 


6/99 


AWP 


OCC (WP Region) 


6/99 


AWP 


Santa Barbara 


8/99 


AWP 


Seattle/Tacoma 


9/99 


ANM 


OSF (MM Region) 


9/99 


ANM 


OCC (NM Region) 


9/99 


ANM 


St Louis 


9/99 


ACE 


OSF (CE Region) 


9/99 


ACE 


OCC (CE Region) 


9/99 


ACE 


Minn-St Paul 


10/99 


AGL 


Cincinnati 


10/99 


ASO 


Pittsburgh 


11/99 


AEA 


Norfolk 


11/99 


AEA 


Louisville 


12/99 


ASO 


Phoenix 


12/99 


AWP 


Birmingham 


1/00 


ASO 


Salt Lake City 


1/00 


ANM 


Cleveland 


2/00 


AGL 


San Antonio 


2/00 


ASW 


Kansas City 


3/00 


ACE 


Anchorage 


3/00 


AAL 


OSF (AL Region) 

OCC^(AL^ 

Miami 


3/00 

3/o6" 

4/00 


AAL 

aaL 

ASO 


Manchester 


4/00 


ANE 


Las Vegas 


5/00 


AWP 


Nashville 


5/00 


ASO 


Corpus Christi 


6/00 


ASW 


Indianapolis 


6/00 


AGL 


Memphis 
Portland 


7/00 

mo 


ASO 

anm' 


Cape Cod 


8/00 


ANE 


Dayton 


1 mo 


AGL 



296 



Charlotte 


8/00 


ASO 




Tulsa 


9/00 


ASW 




Raleigh 


9/00 


ASO 




Honolulu 


9/00 


AWP 




Port Colombus 


9/00 


AGL 




Potomac T/R 


9/00 


AEA 




Logistics Center 
(Depot) 


10/00 


HQ 




Albuquerque 


10/00 


ASW 




Spokane 


10/00 


ANM 




Orlando 


11/00 


ASO 




Windsor Locks 


11/00 


ANE 




Richmond 


11/00 


AEA 




Des Moines 


12/00 


ACE 




Guam 


12/00 


AWP 




Oklahoma City 


12/00 


ASW 




Tampa 


12/00 


ASO 




Providence 


1/01 


ANE 




New Orleans 


1/01 


ASW 




Albany 


1/01 


AEA 




Chicago T/R 


9/00 


AGL 




Jacksonville 


2/01 


ASO 




Syracuse 


2/01 


AEA 




Omaha 


2/01 


ACE 




Pensacola 


3/01 


ASO 




Buffalo 


3/01 


AEA 




Shreveport 


3/01 


ASW 




Daytona Beach 


3/01 


ASO 




Tucson 


4/01 


AWP 




Milwaukee 


4/01 


AGL 




W Palm Beach 


4/01 


ASO 




Wichita 


5/01 


ACE 




Greensboro 


5/01 


ASO 




El Paso 


5/01 


ASW 




Rochester 


6/01 


AE>^ 




Little Rock 


6/01 


AS>^ 


r 


- Roanoke 


6/01 


AEi^ 


L 


Grand Rapids 


6/01 


AGl 


J 


Austin 


7/01 


ASW 


J 


Hanisburg 


7/01 


1 AEA 


I 



297 



Charleston 


7/01 


ASO 


Midland 


8/01 


ASW 


Lubbock 


8/01 


ASW 


Huntsville 


8/01 


ASO 


Fort Smith 


9/01 


ASW 


Pasco 


9/01 


ANM 


Fresno 


9/01 


AWP 


Akron 


9/01 


AGL 


Logistics Center 
(Mobile) 


10/01 


HQ 


Rome 


10/01 


AEA 


Montgomery 


10/01 


ASO 


Toledo 


11/01 


AGL 


Lansing 


11/01 


AGL 


Bangor 


11/01 


ANE 


Knoxville 


12/01 


ASO 


Burlington 


12/01 


ANE 


Fayetteville 


12/01 


ASO 


Portland 


12/01 


ANE 


Central Florida 
T/ll 


9/00 


ASO 


Lafayette 


1/02 


ASW 


Tallahassee 


1/02 


ASO 


Springfield 


1/02 


ACE 


So. California T/R 


1/02 


AWP 


Denver T/R 


9/01 


ANM 


Fort Meyers 


2/02 


ASO 


Chattanooga 


2/02 


ASO 


Madison 


2/02 


AGL 


Peoria 


3/02 


AGL 


Kingsport 


3/02 


ASO 


Eugene 


3/02 


ANM 


Kalamazoo 


3/02 


AGL 


Dallas Ft Worth 
T/R 


9/01 


ASW 


Columbia 


4/02 


ASO 


Reno 


4/02 


AWP 


Greer 


4/02 


ASO 


Fargo 


5/02 


AGL 


Myrtle Beach 


5/02 


ASO 



Fort Wayne 


5/02 


AGL 


Logistics Center 
(Mobile) 


6/02 


HQ 


Abilene 


6/02 


ASW 


Boise 


6/02 


ANM 


Champaign 


6/02 


AGL 


Baton Rouge 


7/02 


ASW 


New Hanover 


7/02 


ASO 


Springfield 


7/02 


AGL 


Moline 


7/02 


AGL 


Asheville 


8/02 


ASO 


Evansville 


8/02 


AGL 


Augusta 
Green Bay 


8/02 
9/02 


ASO 

AGL 


Youngstown 


9/02 


AGL 


Savannali 


9/02 


ASO 


Charieston 


9/02 


AEA 


Lexington 


10/02 


ASO 


Billings 


10/02 


ANM 


Saginaw 


11/02 


AGL 


Flint 


11/02 


AGL 


Florence 


11/02 


ASO 


Lincoln 


12/02 


ACE 


Gulfjport 


12/02 


ASO 


Cedar Rapids 


12/02 


ACE 


Mobile 


12/02 


ASO 


Monroe 


1/03 


ASW 


Amarillo 


1/03 


ASW 


Erie 


1/03 


AEA 


New York T/R 


9/02 


AEA 


Muskegon 


2/03 


AGL 


Rockford 


2/03 


AGL 


Jackson 


2/03 


ASO 


Lake Charles 


3/03 


ASW 


Binghamton 


3/03 


AEA 


Ehnira 


4/03 


AEA 


South Bend 


4/03 


AGL 


Huntington 


4/03 


AEA 


Longview 


4/03 


ASW 


Waco 


5/03 


ASW 



299 



Terre Haute 


5/03 


AGL 


Bakersfield 


5/03 


AWP 


Sioux Falls 


6/03 


AGL 


Great Falls 


6/03 


ANM 


Clarksburg 


6/03 


AEA 


Sioux City 


6/03 


ACE 


Fairbanks 


7/03 


AAL 


Waterloo 
Beaumont 


7/03 


ACE 


7/03 


ASW 


Mansfield 


8/03 


AGL 


Duluth 


8/03 


AGL 


Rochester 


8/03 


AGL 


Palm Springs 
Roswell 


9/03 
9/63 


AWP 
■ ASW 


Bismarck 


9/03 


AGL 


Casper 


9/03 


ANM 


Hilo 


10/03 


AWP 


Moses Lake 


10/03 


ANM 


Aspen 


10/03 


ANM 


Macon 


11/03 


ASO 


Columbus Metro 


11/03 


ASO 


San Juan CERAP 


11/03 


ASO 



AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE-3) 



Question Please list the 40 locations that are scheduled to receive the ASDE- 
3 equipment, the dates of installation, and expected commissioning dates. 

Answer. The information follows. 

ASDE-3 Locations 
Location Delivery Commissioning Date 



FAA Academy ' 


N/A 


N/A 


FAA Technical Cenler ' 


N/A 


N/A 


Pittsburgh, Pa 


12/89 


05/96 


San Francisco 


ii/9r 


10/95 


Dallas/Ft Worth 


02/92 


03/95 


Philadelphia 


02/92 


03/96 


Los Angeles * 


08/92 


04/95 


Detroit 


08/92 


12/94 


Cleveland 


08/92 


12/94 


Boston 


08/92 


03/95 


Portland 


08/92 


12/94 


Atlanta 


09/92 


01/95 


Seattle 


09/92 


12/93 



300 



Los Angeles ■* 


02/93 


02/95 


Denver (DIA)^' 


03/93 


05/95 


St Louis 


12/93 


02/95 


Denver (DIA)* 


12/93 


10/95 


New York - Kennedy 


01/94 


02/95 


Minneapolis 


07/94 


03/95 


Anchorage 


08/94 


10/95 


New Orleans 


10/94 


09/95 


Baltimore 


11/94 


06/95 


Kansas City 


12/94 


05/95 


Miami 


02/95 


08/96 


Houston " 


02/95 


08/95 


Memphis 


06/95 


10/96 


Chicago 


06/95 


04/96 


Houston * 


08/96 


08/97 


Charlotte ' 


11/97 


11/98 


Raleigh-Durham' 


02/98 


02/99 


Washington National 


02/96 


05/97 


Cincinnatti ' 


10/95 


07/96 


Dulles ' 


11/96 


11/97 


San Diego ' 


11/95 


12/96 


Orlando ' 


05/98 


05/99 


Andrews AFB 


11/98 


11/99 


Orange County' 


02/99 


11/99 


Las Vegas* 


02/97 


02/98 


New York - La Cniardia 


08/98 


08/99 


Newark 


08/97 


08/98 



' FAA Training/Field Support/Depot Support Facility 

^ FAA R&D system for Runway Incursion 

' Second System was procured in fiscal year 1993 

■* Dual Sensor Facilities 

' Fiscal year 1993 Congressionally Mandated Sites 

* Formerly Tampa 

Question. Has a cost^eneflt analysis been done regarding the upgrading of 
the ASDE-3 displays under the Airport Surface Target Identification System program 
(ATIDS)? 

Answer. A cost^eneflt analysis has not been done on upgrading the ASDE-3 
displays under the ATIDS program A study is underway to increase the size of the 
ASDE-3 display which, from a human factors viewpoint, would permit ASDE-3, 
ATIDS, and AMASS information to be more eflFectively displayed. 



Question Why is the FAA moving to upgrade the ASDE-3? Is it more cost 
beneficial than replacing the ASDE-3s with AMASS? 

Answer The FAA is not upgrading or replacing the ASDE-3 with AMASS. 
AMASS is an enhancement to the ASDE-3 and will provide alarm/alert information 
on the ASDE-3 display to aid in the prevention of runway incursions. 



301 



Question The budget justification states that a preliminary cost^eneflt 
analysis resulted in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 15.2 to 1 regarding ATIDS. Is this 
benefit-to-cost ratio calculated as opposed to doing nothing, or is this in comparison 
to an AMASS unit? 

Answer The preliminary CBA was calculated as opposed to "doing nothing". 
ATIDS will provide positive identification of aircraft on designated airport movement 
areas AMASS provides alarm/alert information to the controllers to assist in the 
prevention of runway incursions. There should be no direct comparison of these two 
systems The ATIDS benefits in the preliminary CBA were quantified based on both 
safety and capacity as Surface Movement Advisor (SMA) was included in the CBA. 
The revised CBA will include only ATIDS "safety" benefits. Therefore, the benefit- 
to-cost ratio is expected to be reduced as "capacity" benefits were a large part of the 
15 2 to 1 ratio 

LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (LAAS) 

Question. Given the setback with the WAAS contract, is the $6 million 
originally requested needed for LAAS? 

Answer. The WAAS contract and the LAAS development program are 
completely independent of each other. Therefore, the WAAS schedule delay has no 
impact on the $6 million originally requested for LAAS. This request is for the 
development of LAAS ground and airborne equipment standards 

TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR 

Question: Please provide the Committee with the latest listing for the 
installation and commissioning of the 47 terminal doppler weather radars 

Answer: The table below identifies 45 operational sites Two sites are 
support activities They are program support facility and the training facility, both 
located at Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, Ok 

Commissioning 
Jul. 94 
Dec. 94 
Feb. 95 
Jul 95 
Aug. 95 
Sep. 95 
Dec 95 
Dec 95 
Jan. 96 
Jan. 96 
Jan 96 
Mar. 96 
Apr 96 
Apr 96 
May 96 
Jun. 96 
Jun 96 
Jun. 96 



Location 


Delivery 


Houston, TX 


Mar. 93 


Memphis, TN 


Ap 93 


St Louis, MO 


May 94 


Kansas City, KS 


Dec. 95 


Denver, CO 


Dec. 93 


Wichita, KS 


Jun. 95 


Charlotte, NC 


Sep. 95 


Atlanta, GA 


Ap 93 


Washington. DC. 


Feb. 94 


Boston, MA 


Apr. 95 


Dallas/Love, TX 


May 95 


New Orieans, LA 


Jul. 94 


Tampa, FL 


Dec 94 


Orlando, FL 


Jun 94 


Miami, FL 


Nov 95 


Dallas/Ft Worth, TX 


Jun 95 


West Palm Beach, FL 


Feb 96 


Chicago, IL 


Mar. 94 



302 



Jul. 96 
Jul. 96 
Jul. 96 
Aug. 96 
Aug. 96 
Aug 96 
Aug. 96 
Sep. 96 
Sep. 96 
Sep. 96 
Oct. 96 
Oct. 96 
Oct 96 
Nov. 96 
Nov 96 
Nov. 96 
Dec. 96 
Dec 96 
Dec. 96 
Dec. 96 
Jan. 97 
Jan. 97 
TBD 
TBD 
TBD 
TBD 
TBD 

TOWER AUTOMATION PROGRAM 

Question. Please list the 13 towers providing the highest benefit for 
receiving the basic automation platform design to support the surface movement 
advisor You recognize 13 towers providing the highest benefits utilizing this 
system Why did the FAA ask for funding for only eight systems in its fiscal year 
1 997 budget request? 

Answer. The 13 towers providing the highest benefits are: 
(1) Chicago O'Hare, IL; (2) Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX; (3) J. F. Kennedy, NY; (4) 
Newark, NJ; (5) St. Louis, MO; (6) San Francisco, CA, (7) Los Angeles, CA; (8) 
Atlanta International, GA; (9) Miami, FL; (10) Washington Dulles, VA; (11) 
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN; (12) Detroit Metro Wayne, MI, and (13) Boston 
Logan, MA 

Funding from fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 appropriations will be 
used to produce 13 operational tower automation platforms with the surface 
movement advisor. Overall FAA budget constraints restricted our request to only 
eight systems in fiscal year 1997. 



Detroit, MI 


Mar. 96 


Indianapolis, IN 


Jul. 95 


Houston^obby, TX 


Aug. 95 


Andrews AFB 


Dec. 94 


Pittsburgh, PA 


Dec 94 


Philadelphia, PA 


Nov 95 


Columbus, OH 


Feb. 96 


Cleveland, OH 


Dec 95 


Milwaukee, WI 


May 95 


Dayton, OH 


May 95 


Salt Lake City, UT 


Nov. 95 


Phoenix, AZ 


Mar. 96 


Oklahoma City, OK 


Feb. 96 


Covington, KY. 


Dec. 95 


Baltimore, MD 


Jan 96 


Washington Dulles, VA 


Dec. 95 


Minneapolis, MN 


May 96 


Nashville, TN 


May 96 


Raleigh/Durham, NC 


May 96 


Newark, NJ 


Aug 94 


Tulsa, OK 


Aug 96 


Louisville. KY 


Aug 96 


Chicago, IL (MDW) 


TBD 


Ft Lauderdale, FL 


TBD 


Las Vegas, NV 


Dec 96 


New York, NY 


TBD 


San Juan, Puerto Rico 


TBD 



303 



INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEMS (ILS) 

Question Please list all those sites that will be having ILS equipment installed 
that was procured with prior year funding. Also list the 28 sites that would be 
receiving new instrument landing systems as part of replacing the GRN-27 system 

Answer. The site that will have previously procured ILS equipment installed 
is Detroit Metro, Michigan (RAV 22). 

The 28 sites receiving ILS equipment under the GRN-27 replacement program 
are as follows: 

GRN-27 Replacement Locations 

Runway 

36R 

06L 

29L 

MR 

12R 

22 

36L 

16 

36L 

08R 

07 

20 

05 

03 

11 

14 

36L 

28R 

16R 

MR 

18R 

36L 

08L 

09R 

05R 

10 

02L 

Note: Changing conditions at airport locations may dictate that installation 
priorities be modified. 

CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

Question. Please describe to the Committee why the FAA is asking to almost 
double the amount of funding for the Center for Advanced Aviation System 
Development (CAASD). 



City 


Stat( 


Tulsa 


OK 


Dayton (Intl) 


OH 


Minneapolis 


MN 


Omaha 


NE 


San Antonio 


TX 


LaGuardia 


NY 


Charlotte-Douglas 


NC 


Eugene 


OR 


Memphis 


TN 


Atlanta 


GA 


Jacksonville 


FL 


Chattanooga 


TN 


Birmingham 


AL 


Greer 


SC 


Columbia 


SC 


Shreveport 


LA 


Tampa 


FL 


San Francisco 


CA 


Sacramento 


CA 


Omaha 


NE 


Huntsville 


AL 


Covington 


KY 


FAA Depot 


OK 


Atlanta 


GA 


Atlanta 


GA 


Raleigh 


NC 


New Orleans 


LA 


Nashville 


TN 



304 



Answer. FAA is not asking to double the amount of funding. The fiinding 
requested in fiscal year 1997 for the CAASD is approximately the same as that 
requested in fiscal year 1996 In fiscal year 1996, the funding for CAASD was as 
follows: $54.3 million ($30.5 million from the System Engineering and Development 
line item and $23.8 million from various other F&E program sources), $5 9 million 
from R,E&D, and approximately $2 million from Operations. 

In fiscal year 1997, funding for CAASD was consolidated in two F&E budget 
line items for a total of $57 million. In addition, there is $5.2 million requested for 
CAASD in R,E&D. 

Question. How many work years were purchased by the fiscal year 1996 
appropriated level of $30.5 million, and what is the amount of work years being 
procured with the fiscal year 1997 requested level of $57 million 

Answer. A total of 335 technical staff years were purchased in fiscal year 
1996 and that same level is planned for fiscal year 1997 In fiscal year 1996 
approximately 164 technical staff years were provided from the $30.5 million with the 
remaining 171 technical staff years purchased from other F&E program sources, 
augmented with R,E&D and Operations funding In fiscal year 1997, $57 million will 
procure approximately 308 technical staff years 

Question. Please display the work years being purchased under the 
$57 million request, and associated work years with the 1 1 tasks described on 
page 426 of the F&E budget request, that is, the amount of work years each 
task will consume 

Answer. The information follows: 

CAASD Work Year Information 

Tasks Work Years 

(1) The fundamental operational concepts and systems 
architecture, along with supporting analyses, for 

evolution of the N AS 94 

(2) Methods of collaborating with NAS users to develop 

strategic traffic management systems 20 

(3) Definition and development requirements for Global 
Positioning System (GPS) augmentation 7 

(4) Analysis and experiments using applications of specific 
conflict probe, decision support systems (DSS), data link, and 
other technologies to enhance and ensure system performance 55 

(5) Experimental prototypes to demonstrate operational and 
technological concepts for transitioning to a space-based, 
automatic dependent surveillance broadcast mode of 

providing accurate surveillance 17 

(6) Methodologies and analyses of free maneuvering and 

free routing to upgrade existing ATC/TFM packages 24 

(7) New Operational performance metrics for the NAS 2 1 

(8) Analysis of alternative strategic service directions, and 
a suggested roadmap, for focusing Air Traffic 
resources to expand and improve the services 

provided to NAS users 14 



(9) High-level investment analyses and options to improve 

the FAA's strategic planning function 10 

(10) Design alternatives for the next generation NAS 
communication system 35 

(11) Independent analysis and validation of operational data 

link system performance requirements. ii 

Technical Staff Total 308 

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM -- OVERALL MANAGEMENT 

Question. FAA provides AIP funds for projects under grants, letters of intent 
(LOI), or both The letter of intent is a special funding mechanism the congress 
authorized FAA to use for funding projects that would significantly enhance the 
capacity of the national airport system. Because such projects are costly, the letter of 
intent allows FAA to spread out AIP funding beyond the program's authorization 
period if necessary FAA has not issued any letters of intent since 1993, but has 22 
outstanding letters of intent with commitments totaling about $500 million from fiscal 
years 1997 through 2005. FAA has tested analytical methods for evaluating airport 
capacity improvement projects so that AIP funds will go to the projects that address 
national priorities and provide positive net investment benefits Please explain the 
results of these tests and how FAA has incorporated these methods into its decision- 
making process for awarding grants. 

Answer. Two primary factors are considered when evaluating requests for 
discretionary funding of capacity enhancement projects. The first is whether the 
proposed work will enhance the capacity of the nation's airport system. This is 
studied by capacity officers in each of the regional offices and coordinated with the 
studies made by the Office of System Capacity and Requirements. These studies may 
involve the annual Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plans and/or use of modeling 
techniques conducted at the Technical Center. The second factor is a benefit-cost 
analysis of the proposed project. Unless the analysis indicates a positive result, the 
project will not be considered for AIP fiinding. Another factor which is considered is 
the airport's financial commitment to the project. 

Question. FAA was working to streamline its AIP grant review and approval 
process so that both the agency and airports could reduce paperwork and staff time. 
What is the status of this effort and could you explain how this streamlined process 
has cut costs for both the agency and airports? 

Answer. FAA's work to streamline the AIP grant review and approval 
process is part of an overall recgineering effort called the Airport Planning and 
Development Process (APDP) In order to obtain maximum benefit for AIP grant 
management, FAA has expanded the scope of the reengineering to consider the entire 
process of needs identification, planning, and airport development. The APDP 
reengineering will simplify FAA's grants administration and project management 
function to free up resources needed to meet the challenge of the future. The new 
process has three key goals: 

(1) Reduce many of FAA's responsibilities for the details of grants and project 

management while increasing the authority and control of airport sponsors and 

states. 



306 



(2) Review and approve multi-year airport development programs (master 
agreements) rather than individual projects, and 

(3) Measure airport system performance and predict improvements with 
respect to various funding scenarios. 

FAA expects to be able to reallocate as much as 40 percent of existing grant's 
administration and project management resources to technical involvement in project 
formulation, consultation, coordination, and performance measurement functions. 
These newly available resources will concentrate on providing value added services at 
the airport level in areas such as capacity improvement, new environmental 
requirements, and new technologies such as GPS. 

Airport operators can also expect to receive significant benefits from the new 
process Grant applications paperwork will be significantly reduced. AIP grant 
assurances and certifications will only be required once per year rather than with each 
application. Large airport sponsors may save over 50 percent of their costs to prepare 
grant applications System wide, 30 percent to 50 percent fewer applications will be 
required depending upon state participation in multi-year master agreements. 

Implementation of the APDP began in April 1996 when several working 
groups were formed to define specific elements and procedures for the new process. 
The implementation effort is expected to extend over a three year period and will 
include new information technology systems and development of new training classes, 
both of which will benefit FAA and airport operators alike. 

A number of short term initiatives have already been completed which will 
benefit the AIP grant review and approval process These include new procedures to 
eliminate the need for preapplications and to shorten approvals at the Department 
level: (1) a guide for developing and implementing Airport Capital Improvement 
Planning, which can be used to help airport sponsors and FAA work together for 
earlier planning and review of AIP needs; and (2) establishment of an Internet home 
page to make AIP grant program information easily available to all interested parties. 

Question. To ensure that AIP funds are used as effectively and efficiently as 
possible, the Congress directed FAA to analyze innovative approaches to using federal 
funds to finance airport development FAA recently reported the results of this work. 
Please explain the results of FAA's work including what mechanisms will produce 
greater investment in airport development per dollar of federal expenditure Also, did 
the study identify any potential areas in which AIP funding could be cut? 

Answer. The report analyzed four concepts of innovative airport financing 
including: use AIP grants to fund debt repayment reserves of airport revenue bond issues; 
authorize Federal guarantee of airport loans, analysis assuming retention of tax exempt 
status, AIP eligibility for commercial bond insurance; and institute an airport loan fund. 

Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study of innovative 
approaches for using federal funds to finance airport development as a means of 
supplementing financing available under the AIP. Accordingly, given the direction 
outlined above and the effectiveness of current federal policies and program levels, the 
impact of these innovative financing mechanisms was viewed from three perspectives: 
general system-wide impacts~the analysis concludes that low-to-modest potential gains 
are possible for airport development; specific, targeted development- the analysis indicates 
a potentially pivotal role for innovative financing mechanisms; and development under a 
fiscally constrained federal program~the analysis indicates both a significant system-wide 
impact and targeted role. 



307 



All four concepts were determined to have a quantifiable impact on the amount of 
capital available for airport development. But as noted above, the extent of that impact 
varied considerably, given different assumptions. Under historic AJP funding levels of 
recent years, the impacts were determined to be small, particularly in relationship to costs 
associated with establishing a new federal program. Of the four options studied, the AJP 
eligibility for commercial bond insurance concept offered the greatest impact for the least 
implementation difficulty 

The study, as noted above, and under specific direction from Congress, was based 
on the mechanisms as supplements to the AIP. Therefore, the report did not specifically 
identify any areas in which AIP funding could be reduced. However, in the examination of 
existing airport financing, the report noted that, on strictly econometric terms, large and 
medium hub airports do not face any systematic constraints in fijnding airport development 
projects. 

Question Currently, the AIP funding formula requires that $325 million of the 
total AIP funding level be placed in the discretionary funding category so that letter of 
intent discretionary commitments were no more than about 50 percent of total AIP 
discretionary funding. The $325 million level was needed to meet discretionary 
commitments in earlier years, but those commitments are shrinking. Is FAA planning 
any additional LOI discretionary commitments or can the $325 million level be cut? 

Answer. LOIs represent a method in which airports may accomplish projects 
which enhance the capacity of the Nation's airport system in advance of AIP grants 
and be reimbursed for the work in fijture AIP grants. Since LOIs are permitted under 
current legislation, the FAA is receiving many requests for LOIs for important 
capacity enhancement projects. With the recently reduced level of funding for the 
AIP, many airports consider LOIs to be the only way in which to receive appropriate 
funding from the AIP. Some of these requests are for projects at Memphis, 
Philadelphia, Northwest Arkansas, Seattle, and Atlanta. Other requests are expected. 
The present policy has suspended the issuance of LOIs since 1994. If the policy is 
overturned and new LOIs are issued, the $325 million level for discretionary funding 
should be maintained. 

Question. The Administration has been committed to an integrated system of 
roads, railroads, ports, and waterways. Please explain how FAA is working with the 
Department of Transportation to ensure that airport development is coordinated with 
other infrastructure development? 

Answer, The FAA as well as other transportation modes require cooperative 
planning of federal financial assistance projects, so the use of highway and aviation 
trust funds are both subject to coordination. 

~ Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 450.312, requires 
intermodal coordination of State and metropolitan planning organization 
(MPO) surface transportation plans or access projects with airports. 
— The FAA's Program Guidance Letter 93-6.3 requires coordination of AIP 
multimodal projects with the MPO 

Question. GAO reported last year that, because FAA did not have guidance 
and standards to serve as criteria for evaluating these intermodal systems, it was 
difficult for FAA officials to ensure that AIP funds are used only for those system 
components necessary to meet FAA's requirements, as the agency's AIP funding 



308 



policy directs. Also, airports had spent funds on system components that FAA later 
determined were not needed to meet its requirements. What is the status of 
implementing the guidance and standards and how will they help save AIP and airport 
costs that otherwise would be incurred"!* 

Answer. The FAA and other transportation modes are preparing an airport 
surface access planning guide, which is due to be completed in fiscal year 1996. The 
guide will provide a framework for airport layout planning required under the AIP in 
balance with surface transportation requirements. We have been assured by the 
Department of Transportation that airports designated for connection to the National 
Highway System will be eligible for highway trust fianding as described in the report 
entitled "Pulling Together " 

Question. Based on FAA's innovative financing study, are airports facing a 
critical funding gap*^ 

Answer. The study, under specific direction from Congress, was based on an 
analysis of fijnding mechanisms as supplements to the AIP The focus, therefore, was on 
the mechanisms' ability to increase capital formation for airports, not to analyze airport 
developmental needs. However, in the examination of existing airport financing, the study 
concluded that, on strictly econometric terms, large and medium hub airports do not face 
any systematic constraints in funding airport development projects The study also noted 
that capital investment lagged demand (as measured in enplanement grov^h) at smaller 
airports. In addition, the study noted that other factors such as environmental mitigation 
and local disagreements substantially influence the ability of airports to meet capital 
improvement demands. 

Question. Does FAA endorse any mechanisms to better leverage federal funds 
and meet airport capital needs? 

Answer The FAA and the Department of Transportation have not endorsed 
any specific funding mechanisms. We are aware of the need to augment federal flinds 
with alternative funding sources and will continue to evaluate any proposals with 
objectivity. The larger airports are able to generate a high percentage of development 
and operating funds from various sources. In addition to federal funds, they rely on 
landing fees and bonds to augment federal funds. The debt service costs associated 
with bonds adds significantly to the total cost of capital development. Landing fees 
are near or above the threshold the airlines consider reasonable to permit profitable 
operations. Consequently, there needs to be more attention given to the search for 
innovative funding sources In recognition of the need to identify alternative sources 
for airport funding, the Administration's proposed reauthorization legislation for AIP 
directs that a select panel be empowered to evaluate all aspects of airport funding. 
The results of such a study should provide a framework from which fijnding 
alternatives can be developed and implemented. 

Question. Are large airports self-sufficient enough to do with less AIP 
funding? 

Answer. The FAA and the Department of Transportation do not feel that 
elimination of federal funding for large airports is warranted. Although these airports 
generate a higher percentage of development and operating funds from various 
sources, there is always a shortfall which must be fijnded with a combination of higher 
fees, bonds, and federal funding Loss of federal fund sources will inevitably result in 



309 



higher costs for debt service Increases in landing fees will not be met with 
enthusiastic response from the air carriers. Consequently, the AIP funding levels at 
large airports should be maintained, instead of reduced If alternative funding sources 
backed by federal guarantees are developed, the subject could be readdressed. 

Question. With the $325 million discretionary funding requirement and the 
entitlement funding cap, what is the projected level of entitlement funding for primary 
airports af\er PFC returns? 

Answer We project that, under the Administration's proposal for AIP to be 
funded at $1.35 billion, approximately $373.2 million would be apportioned to 
primary airports, taking into account the amounts that would not be apportioned to 
those large and medium hub airports which are collecting PFCs. The exact amount 
will not be known until final passenger boarding figures are obtained later this year. 

AIRPQRT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS 

Question Under the Administration's request for $1.35 million, and using 
current law distributions, please distribute fijnds to both the entitlement and 
discretionary categories. Compare that budget request for the funding in each of the 
categories in fiscal year 1996. 

Answer. The information follows: 



AIP Funding tor Fiscal Year 

1996 
Aopropnalion Limitation 






12/29/95 






SI. 4 50.000.000 


Primary ftirports 


S428226519 






Cargo (3 5%) 


S38.945.243 






Alaska Supolemental 


510.672557 






S!ales(i:%> 


SI 59. 148.385 






Carryover En|illem»nt 


S91 C56 641 






SuStolal Entitlements 






5728.049.345 


Noise (12 5",) • 


S181.250 000 






Reliever (5%) 


S48.000.000 






Commercial Service (1 5%) * 


$21,750,000 






System Planning (0 75".) * 


S10.875.000 






MAP (2 5%) 


S26 000 000 






Subtotal Disc Set-asides 






5287.875.000 


Returned Enlitlements 








Small Airport Fund 




587,279.184 




Non Hub Airports 


S58. 186.123 






Non Commercial Svc 


S29.093.061 






Small Hubs 




S14 546.531 


S101.825.715 


C'S/S'N • 


S249.187 455 






Remaining Discretionary • 


S83 062.485 






Subtotal Discretionar/ 






5332.249.940 


GP^ND TOTAL 






51.450.000.000 



310 



Notes 




PFC Rid Enl To C.'S.S/N 


510905.572 


PPC Rtd Ent To Rem Discetionary 


S3635 224 


';.Red Due to -J^io/o Cao 


16 10334% 


'.» Red Due to Prcration (S325 M) 


8 53516% 


Total % 'eduction m entitlements 


23 26432% 



■ Due to Cap en Reliever Program and Military Airport Program additional funds (S25 467 744) added to 
Noise Sei-3Side (S15 470 426). Commercial Ser/ice (Si. 856 451). and System Planning (S928.226) to bring up lo statutory 
minimums remaining funds distributed to C/S'S/N and Remaining Discretionary (S7. 212 542) in accordance 
witti Conference Report indicating intent to use additional funds for discretionary grants in otfier parts of AlP 



Est. AlP Funding for Fiscal Year 

1997 Current Law 
Appropriation Limitation 




5/16/96 
$1,350,000,000 


Primary Airports 
Cargo (3.5%) 
Alaska Supplemental 
States (12%) 
Carryover Entitlement 


$373,235,433 

$31,917,154 

$10,528,980 

$142,486,919 

$100,000,000 






Subtotal Entitlements 






$658,168,486 


Noise (12.5%) 
Reliever (5%) 

Commercial Service (1.5%) 
System Planning (0.75%) 
MAP (2.5%) 


$148,423,874 

$59,369,550 

$17,810,865 

$8,905,432 

$29,684,775 






Subtotal Disc Set-asides 






$264,194,496 


Returned Entitlements 
Small Airport Fund 
Non Hub Airports 
Non Commercial Svc 


$58,649,725 
$29,324,862 


$87,974,587 




Small Hubs 




$14,662,431 


$102,637,018 


C/S/S/N 

Remaining Discretionary 


$243,750,000 
$81,250,000 






Subtotal Discretionary 






$325,000,000 


GRAND TOTAL 






$1,350,000,000 


Notes: 

PFC Rtd Ent To C/S/S/N 

PFC Rtd Ent To Rem Discretionary 

% Red. Due to 44% Cap 

% Red. Due to Proration ($325 M) 

Total % reduction in entitlements 


$10,996,823 
$3,665,608 
23.19980% 
12.04511% 
32.45047% 


• 



311 



Question Please provicie distribution for each category uncier current law, and 
a $1 35 billion obligation, a $1.4 billion obligation, and a $1 45 billion obligation 
ceiling Secondly, under each of those three flinding scenarios, besides public law, 
provide the amount of funding that would be available for each entitlement and 
discretionary category if the Military Airports Program (MAP) were limited to $20 
million and the funding for the Reliever Airports Program was limited to $45 million 

Answer The comparative information follows: 



Est. AlP Funding for Fiscal Year 

1 997 Current Law 
Appropriation Limitation 


5/16/96 
$1,350,000,000 


Primary Airports 
Cargo (3.5%) 
Alaska Supplemental 
States (12%) 
Carryover Entitletiieiit 


$373,235,433 

$31,917,154 

$10,528,980 

$142,486,919 

$100,000,000 




Subtotal Entitlements 




$658,168,486 


Noise (12.5%) 
Reliever (5%) 

Commercial Service (1.5%) 
System Planning (0.75%) 
MAP (2.5%) 


$148,423,874 

$59,369,550 

$17,810,865 

$8,905,432 

$29,684,775 




Subtotal Disc Set-asides 




$264,194,496 


Returned Entitlements 
Small Airport Fund 
Non Hub Airports 
Non Commercial Svc 


$87,974,587 
$58,649,725 
$29,324,862 




Small Hubs 


$14,662,431 


$102,637,018 


C/S/S/N 

Remaining Discretionary 


$243,750,000 
$81,250,000 




Subtotal Discretionary 




$325,000,000 


GRAND TOTAL 


. 


$1,350,000,000 



Notes: 

PFC Rtd Ent To C/S/S/N 

PFC Rtd Ent To Rem Discretionary 

% Red. Due to 44% Cap 

% Red. Due to Proration ($325 M) 

Total % reduction in entitlements 



n0,996,823 
$3,665,608 
23.19980% 
12.04511% 
32.45047% 



312 



Est. AlP Funding for Fiscal Year 

1997 Current Law 
Appropriation Limitation 




5/16/96 
$1,400,000,000 


Primary Airports 
Cargo (3.5%) 
Alaska Supplemental 
States 112%) 
Carryover Entitlement 


$392,739,737 

$34,828,951 

$10,528,980 

$150,272,154 

$100,000,000 






Subtotal Entitlements 






$688,369,822 


Noise (12.5%) 
Reliever (5%) 

Commercial Service (1.5%) 
System Planning (0.75%) 
MAP (2.5%) 


$156,533,494 

$62,613,398 

$18,784,019 

$9,392,010 

$31,306,699 






Subtotal Disc Set-asides 






$278,629,619 


Returned Entitlements 
Small Airport Fund 
Non Hub Airports 
Non Commercial Svc 


$61,714,605 
$30,857,303 


$92,571,908 




Small Hubs 




$15,428,651 


$108,000,559 


C/S/S/N 

Remaining Discretionary 


$243,750,000 
$81,250,000 






Subtotal Discretionary 






$325,000,000 


GRAND TOTAL 






$1,400,000,000 


Notes: 

PFC Rtd Ent To C/S/S/N 

PFC Rtd Ent To Rem Discretionary 

% Red. Due to 44% Cap 

% Red. Due to Proration ($325 M) 

Total % reduction in entitlements 


$11,571,488 
$3,857,163 
20.53515% 
10.55229% 
28.92051% 





313 



Est. AlP Funding for Fiscal Year 

1 997 Current Law 
Appropriation Limitation 




5/16/96 
$1,450,000,000 


Primary Airports 
Cargo (3.5%) 
Alaska Supplemental 
States (12%) 
Carryover Entitlement 


$412,154,773 

$37,856,098 

$10,528,980 

$158,056,851 

$100,000,000 






Subtotal Entitlements 






$718,596,703 


Noise (12.5%) 
Reliever (5%) 

Commercial Service (1.5%) 
System Planning (0.75%) 
MAP (2.5%) 


$164,642,553 

$65,857,021 

$19,757,106 

$9,878,553 

$32,928,511 






Subtotal Disc Set-asides 






$293,063,745 


Returned Entitlements 
Small Airport Fund 
Non Hub Airports 
Non Commercial Svc 


$64,765,458 
$32,382,729 


$97,148,188 




Small Hubs 




$16,191,365 


$113,339,552 


C/S/S/N 

Remaining Discretionary 


$243,750,000 
$81,250,000 






Subtotal Discretionary 






$325,000,000 


GRAND TOTAL 






$1,450,000,000 


Notes: 

PFC Rtd Ent To C/S/S/N 

PFC Rtd Ent To Rem Discretionary 

% Red. Due to 44% Cap 

% Red. Due to Proration ($325 M) 

Total % reduction in entitlements 


$12,143,523 

$4,047,841 

17.88250% 

9.16273% 

25.40670% 





314 



Est. AlP Funding for Fiscal Year 5/1 6/96 

1997 Current Law with Caps on Reliever/MAP 
Appropriation Limitation $1,350,000,000 


Primary Airports 
Cargo (3.5%) 
Alaska Supplemental 
States (12%) 
Carryover Entitlement 


$373,235,433 

$31,917,154 

$10,528,980 

$142,486,919 

$100,000,000 






Subtotal Entitlements 






$658,168,486 


Noise (12.5%) 
Reliever (5%) 

Commercial Service (1.5%) 
System Planning (0.75%) 
MAP (2.5%) 


$166,266,521 

$48,000,000 

$19,951,983 

$9,975,991 

$20,000,000 






Subtotal Disc Set-asides 






$264,194,495 


Returned Entitlements 
Small Airport Fund 
Non Hub Airports 
Non Commercial Svc 


$58,649,725 
$29,324,862 


$87,974,587 




Small Hubs 




$14,662,431 


$102,637,018 


C/S/S/N 

Remaining Discretionary 


$243,750,000 
$81,250,000 






Subtotal Discretionary 






$325,000,000 


GRAND TOTAL 






$1,350,000,000 


Notes: 

PFC Rtd Ent To C/S/S/N 

PFC Rtd Ent To Rem Discretionary 

% Red. Due to 44% Cap 

% Red. Due to Proration ($325 M) 

Total % reduction in entitlements 


$10,996,823 
$3,665,608 
23.19980% 
12.04511% 
32.45047% 





315 



Est. AlP Funding for Fiscal Year 5/1 6/96 

1997 Current Law with Caps on Reliever/MAP 
Appropriation Limitation $1,400,000,000 


Primary Airports 
Cargo (3.5%) 
Alaska Supplemental 
States (12%) 
Carryover Entitlement 


$392,739,737 

$34,828,951 

$10,528,980 

$150,272,154 

$100,000,000 






Subtotal Entitlements 






$688,369,822 


Noise (12.5%) 
Reliever (5%) 

Commercial Service (1.5%) 
System Planning (0.75%) 
MAP (2.5%) 


$175,000,000 
$48,000,000 
$21,000,000 
$10,500,000 
$20,000,000 






Subtotal Disc Set-asides 






$274,500,000 


Returned Entitlements 
Small Airport Fund 
Non Hub Airports 
Non Commercial Svc 


$61,714,605 
$30,857,303 


$92,571,908 




Small Hubs 




$15,428,651 


$108,000,559 


C/S/S/N 

Remaining Discretionary 


$246,847,214 
$82,282,405 






Subtotal Discretionary 






$329,129,619 


GRAND TOTAL 






$1,400,000,000 


Notes: 

PFC Rtd Ent To C/S/S/N 

PFC Rtd Ent To Rem Discretionary 

% Red. Due to 44% Cap 

% Red. Due to Proration ($325 M) 

Total % reduction in entitlements 


$11,571,488 
$3,857,163 
20.53515% 
10.55229% 
28.92051% 





316 



Est. AlP Funding for Fiscal Year 5/1 6/96 

1 997 Current Law with Caps on Reliever/MAP 
Appropriation Limitation $1,450,000,000 


Primary Airports 
Cargo (3.5%) 
Alaska Supplemental 
States 112%) 
Carryover Entitlement 


$412,154,773 

$37,856,098 

$10,528,980 

$158,056,851 

$100,000,000 






Subtotal Entitlements 






$718,596,703 


Noise (12.5%) 
Reliever (5%) 

Commercial Service (1.5%) 
System Planning (0.75%) 
MAP (2.5%) 


$181,250,000 
$48,000,000 
$21,750,000 
$10,875,000 
$20,000,000 






Subtotal Disc Set-asides 






$281,875,000 


Returned Entitlements 
Small Airport Fund 
Non Hub Airports 
Non Commercial Svc 


$64,765,458 
$32,382,729 


$97,148,188 




Small Hubs 




$16,191,365 


$113,339,552 


C/S/S/N 

Remaining Discretionary 


$252,141,559 
$84,047,186 






Subtotal Discretionary 






$336,188,745 


GRAND TOTAL 






$1,450,000,000 


Notes: 

PFC Rtd Ent To C/S/S/N 

PFC Rtd Ent To Rem Discretionary 

% Red. Due to 44% Cap 

% Red. Due to Proration ($325 M) 

Total % reduction in entitlements 


$12,143,523 

$4,047,841 

17.88250% 

9.16273% 

25.40670% 





317 



AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM -- RELIEVER AIRPORT SET-ASIDE 

Question The reliever airport set-aside is one of five specially legislated AIP 
funding categories In 1994, GAO reported that the conditions the reliever airport 
set-aside fund was created to address ~ reduce congestion at commercial airports and 
provide additional general aviation access - no longer exist However, FAA has not 
yet developed any selection criteria for relievers. Does FAA still not consider general 
aviation traffic to be a significant factor in congestion at commercial airports? 

Answer. The presence of general aviation aircraft at congested airports does 
not appear to be a major cause of air carrier delay. However, the high levels of air 
carrier activity typical at congested airports adversely affects general aviation activity 
The reliever concept reflects a concern of the FAA with accommodating the growth 
of all segments of aviation Its success rests on the positive manner in which this 
concern has been addressed-attracting general aviation activity to well equipped, 
permanent, and conveniently located airports; accommodating the growth of general 
aviation rather than constraining it. The FAA intended that the reliever program 
facilitate the continued growth of general aviation in urban areas, but some observers 
believe that the primary goal has been to reduce delays to air carrier aircraft This 
misunderstanding has led to disputes about how to measure the effectiveness of the 
reliever program. The program has been very successful in providing facilities for 
general aviation in urban areas. Its effectiveness is related to how well this class of 
airport meets the needs of general aviation. 

Question When will FAA finalize its new selection criteria for reliever 
airports? 

Answer. The FAA has completed its evaluation of the reliever airport 
program. This evaluation was undertaken in response to a 1992 audit of the reliever 
airport program by the Department of Transportation OIG A draft report outlining 
decisions that have been made regarding program adjustments will be submitted to the 
OIG in May. Upon OIG concurrence, we will finalize the report and take the actions 
necessary to implement these decisions 

Question. Is there any indication that the current funding level for the reliever 
airport set-aside is too high and can be cut or redistributed for other more important 
airport development needs? 

Answer. No. Total warranted development for reliever airports shown in the 
FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPiAS) is $2.8 billion in the one 
to five year time fi-ame or 9.4 percent of the $30 billion total NPIAS development. In 
fiscal year 1994, some 7.8 percent of the amount appropriated under the AIP was 
allocated for reliever airports by the FAA Relievers received about 6 percent of 
amounts appropriated under the AIP in fiscal year 1995 

Question How many airports are likely to qualify under FAA's new reliever 
airport selection criteria and how does this number compare with the previous 
criteria? 

Answer. The number of qualifying reliever airports is difficult to predict until 
the criteria has been finalized It is possible that the number of reliever airports will be 
reduced. 



Question, Will airports currently designated as relievers that do not meet the 
new criteria continue to be designated a reliever? 

Answer, When the reliever report is finalized, the new criteria will be applied 
and qualifying airports will be categorized as reliever airports. Some existing reliever 
airports may be recategorized. 

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM -- MILITARY AIRPORT PROGRAM 
SET-ASIDE 

Question. In 1994, GAO reported that nine of the 12 airports selected for the 
MAP did not meet the key legislated program goal to enhance airport and air traffic 
capacity in congested metropolitan airports. Furthermore, because nine of the airports 
had been operating as joint use or civilian airports for a decade or more they already 
had the types of facilities in place that the program was designated to develop. The 
current funding formula calls for MAP to get 2.5 percent of the total AIP funding. 
FAA plans to "graduate" all 12 MAP airports from the program by fiscal year 1997 
and has identified two potential new candidates for the MAP - William Air Force 
Base in Arizona and George Air Force Base in California -- that meet FAA's selection 
criteria. Please explain FAA's new criteria for selecting MAP airports. 

Answer. New applicants for the program must respond to the revised 
qualifications and evaluation criteria for the program. Applications were due by 
March 29, 1996. Applicants must; 

- be a former military, commercial service, or reliever airport, have completed the 
environmental analysis process for conveyance of title or joint use, 

" have sufficient property rights or joint use agreement in effect by May 3 1 , 1996 

" have an eligible sponsor, 

" have an approved airport layout plan and a capital budget. 

If the airport meets the above qualifications then it will be further evaluated 
on the following criteria: 

- existing and potential levels of aeronautical activity, 

" its potential role as a commercial service or reliever airport, 
" impact of the potential facility on surrounding airspace, 

- evaluation of the five year capital improvement program for the airport (containing 
capacity and conversion related projects), 

- potential of the airport to reduce congestion at an airport with over 20,000 hours 
of passenger aircraft take off and landing delays, 

" potential intermodal impact, 

- level of community and aviation community interest in the airport. 

The GAO testimony stated that nine of the 12 airports that were in the 
program as of 1994 were converted for ten years or more. This implies that the 
program was designed for newly surplus/converting airfields. However, the statute 
cites current or former military airfields. These includes airports such as Manchester, 
NH, and Stewart International (Newburgh), NY. It makes no distinction for recently 
closed airfields or older military airfields such as Manchester or Laredo. 

The legislation authorizing the MAP was approved on November 5, 1990-the 
same day as the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 was authorized. 
However, the MAP legislation contemplated designating airports relatively soon and 
the first announcement stated that at least two airports must be designated by May 3, 
1991, roughly two months before the 1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment 



319 



Commission issued its report. The remaining airports were to be designated within 
two years, but military bases identified for closure could not meet the time fi-ame for 
MAP participation. Military airfields listed in the 1991 report typically were not in a 
position to receive any grant fiinds, other than planning grants, until at least 1994. 
Initial closures from the 1988 list were also not in a position to apply for the program. 
In 1993, Norton and Pease Air Force Bases were designated and those were 1988 
Commission closures. We believe it was the intent of the program to include former 
military airfields for the 1991 designations or joint use facilities such as Stewart 
International, NY, Myrtle Beach or Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. 

The GAO has identified two potential new candidates for the MAP, William 
Air Force Base in Arizona and George Air Force Base in California -- that meet 
FAA's MAP selection criteria Provided that other airports meet the criteria, fiiture 
selections should not be limited to these two. Many of the 36 recently closing military 
airfields are located in the immediate areas serving the traveling public, and would 
result in significant gains in airport system capacity and reuse of millions of dollars of 
federal investment, at little additional cost. 

Question. The Administration is requesting a simple one year authorization of 
the airport grants program without modification to existing program parameters. 
Given the existing military airports scheduled to "graduate", and the existing airports 
who participate, only two new airports will be added Why hasn't the Administration 
requested a modification of the military airports program? 

Answer. While the FAA is seeking a one-year reauthorization of AIP with no 
major program changes, the FAA's view is that the MAP program should be more 
oriented towards the newly closing military airfields. Availability of MAP funding is a 
major factor in the ability of communities to covert these airfields. About 20 of these 
closing/converting military airfields are capable of being reliever/commercial service 
airports and are located in metropolitan areas, but not necessarily where civil airports 
have 20,000 hours of aircraft delay. An additional number of these airfields have the 
potential of performing global aeronautical functions In addition to relieving 
congestion, they are expected to contribute to the national system as a whole. These 
newly closing bases are in great need of conversion funds Future funding should be 
provided to those military airfields that will provide relief to civil airports with 20,000 
hours of aircraft delay, but also for closing military airfields included in the National 
Plan of Integrated Airport System that are categorized as commercial service and 
reliever airports. This will result in preserving airfields with millions of dollars of 
federal investment as part of the national airport system. 

Question. What military airports will participate, or does FAA estimate will 
participate, in the program in fiscal year 1997? 

Answer. Previously designated airport in MAP are: 
Laredo Airport, TX, Smyrna Airport, TN, Pease International Tradeport, NH, and 
San Bernardino International Airport, CA. All have applied to continue in the 
program If they have eligible projects and the program is extended they can continue 
until 1997. 

Airports submitting Applications for Inclusion in 1996 MAP: 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport, SC; Charlotte International Airport, NC; Millington, 
Municipal Airport (Naval Air Station Memphis), TN, Bergstrom Austin International 
Airport (Bergstrom AFB), TX, Rickenbacker International Airport, OH, and 



320 



Homestead AFB, FL (Dade County), FL; Williams Gateway Airport (Williams AFB), 
AZ. All have applied for designation in the program. FAA anticipates selections 
sometime in late July. 

As military airfields, such as El Toro MCAS, CA, and Cecil Field, FL 
complete their planning process they may also apply for the MAP if they are 
converted to airports. 

Question. With only two new potential MAP airports, could the MAP funding 
level be cut in fiscal year 1997? 

Answer While the GAO reported that George AFB and Williams AFB were 
the only potential airports eligible under the new criteria, FAA has applications from 
Columbia Metropolitan Airport, SC, Charlotte International Airport, NC, Millington, 
Municipal Airport (Naval Air Station Memphis), TN, Bergstrom Austin International 
Airport (Bergstrom AFB), TX, Rickenbacker International Airport, OH, Homestead 
AFB (Dade County), FL, Williams Gateway Airport (Williams AFB), AZ. 

If selected, Williams and Bergstrom will have large conversion related needs. 
Williams Gateway is a reliever for Phoenix Sky harbor, an airport presently 
experiencing delay problems. Bergstrom is establishing a new larger primary airport 
that can handle more direct flights and has large conversion related needs. 

Question. Could the fijnding level be reduced in the outyears past fiscal year 
19977 

Answer Yes. FAA would expect a decline in MAP applications beginning in 
1998 and 1999, assuming that these transitioning military airfields receive an adequate 
level of funding allowing them to accomplish the conversion related and or capacity 
related essential projects. Most of the military airfields presently identified in the four 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commissions are expected to have been 
converted by that time. We expect that if adequate funding is available to these 
airfields there would be a shrinking requirement for MAP funding after 2004, unless 
there are other airfields identified later for closing by the military which would have a 
civil role. 

The latest new military airfields which have the potential for conversion to 
civil use are Marine Corps Station, El Toro, CA (depending on community actions); 
Kelly AFB, TX; McClellan AFB, CA; and Cecil Field, FL. Of these, Cecil Field will 
close around 1999, El Toro near that time, and Kelly and McClellan in 2001 . 

Of these, FAA believes that El Toro will have the greatest conversion 
expenses as one of the projected roles of that airport would be the primary airport for 
Orange County. John Wayne Airport is physically small with little room for growth 
El Toro has almost four times the land area of John Wayne. 

Kelly and McClellan are Air Logistics Centers and would have a specialized 
civil role when DOD aircraft repair work is privatized. The aircraft depot level repair 
facilities are the central focus of the redevelopment of Kelly and McClellan. If there 
are any conversion expenses for these airports to fulfill a civil role they would be 
incurred in 2000-2002. 

Question. Please list all military airports that currently participate in the 
program, their expected date of graduation, and what new airports will be added to 
the program. 



321 



Answer. San Bernardino International Airport (Former Norton AFB), CA, 
Smyrna Airport, TN, Laredo International Airport, TX, and Pease International 
Tradeport (former Pease AFB), NH. Based on legislation limiting participation in 
MAP to five years, all of these airports will graduate from the program in 1997 

FAA has received applications from the following airports for the 1996 
program: 

Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (former Bergstrom AFB), TX 

Homestead AFB, FL 

Williams Gateway Airport (former Williams AFB), AZ 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport, SC 

Charlotte International Airport, NC 

Millington Municipal Airport (former Naval Air Station Memphis), TN 

Rickenbacker International Airport, OH 

FAA anticipates that new selections would be made sometime in late July 
While GAO stated in their testimony to the Congress that there were only two 
candidates Southern California International Airport (former George AFB), CA and 
Williams Gateway Airport, AZ for the program, the FAA believes that there are other 
possibilities. Some of the applying airports cite and are basing their applications on 
the following activities and indicate that their airports will serve to relieve other civil 
airports with 20,000 hours of passenger aircraft delay. Several examples are listed 
below: 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport, SC - Atlanta and Philadelphia because of a 

relocating UPS hub. 

Charlotte International -- Projects to relieve congestion at that airport. 

Millington Municipal - Reliever to Memphis International Airport, which has 

20,000 hours of aircraft delay. 

Homestead AFB -Classified as a reliever to Miami International, an airport 

with 20,000 hours of aircraft delay. 

Austin-Bergstrom -- Replacement Airport for Austin Mueller Airport which 
will provide an alternative to Dallas- Fort Worth and Houston. 

Intercontinental which both experience 20,000 hours of aircraft 
delay 

Williams Gateway Airport - Classified as a reliever to Phoenix Sky Harbor, 
an airport with 20,000 hours of aircraft delay. 

Rickenbacker International Airport - Port Columbus Airport is projected to 
have passenger growth. Rickenbacker is developing a reliever and growing 
cargo facility. 

AIRPORTS/RELIEVER PROGRAM 

Question. The fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill limited the amount of 
funding available for the Military Airport Program and Reliever Airports categories. 
In FAA's estimation has this, hampered the administration of those programs*!* Can the 
FAA list any airports that have been disadvantaged because of these restrictions'^ If 
so, please list those airports that have suffered? 

Answer As the result of reduced funding, some projects at both reliever 
airports and airports in the military airport program have been deferred. The impact 
of reduced funding levels at reliever airports will be further evaluated once the criteria 



is finalized The impacts of the military airfields conversions and funding will also 
continue to be analyzed as the airport master planning process is completed. 

Reduced funding at those current or former military airports that have the 
greatest conversion needs will delay their being able to attract the necessary aviation 
tenants to make them a viable civil airport and contribute to the local economy and the 
national aviation system 

The Military Airport Program allows funding of some types of conversion 
projects such as utility system rehabilitation, surface automobile parking lots, fuel 
farms and that are not normally funded from other categories of funding from the 
Airport Improvement Program The fiscal year 1996 MAP program has also been 
limited to $26 million and could have an impact on large airport projects such as the 
new Laredo terminal building, large runway construction or rehabilitation projects, 
and the San Bernardino International Airport terminal rehabilitation. 

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - STATE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 

Question. In 1987, the Congress authorized FAA to initiate a State Block 
Grant (SBG) pilot program Under the program, FAA provides AIP funds to 
participating states that, in turn, select and fund projects at small airports ~ general 
aviation, reliever, and nonprimary commercial service airports Would FAA like the 
Congress to extend the program beyond fiscal year 1996 and expand the SBG pilot 
program to allow additional States to participate? 

Answer Yes, the Administration has proposed to extend the Block Grant 
program one year and allow three additional States to participate. 

Question If so, to what degree would this result in more efficient use of 
Federal funds and allow FAA to further offset staff reductions? 

Answer The basis for the Administration's request to extend the SBG 
program is the enhancement of customer service that would result, not FAA staff 
reductions 

~ FAA believes qualified State aviation agencies could provide the same level of 

service to nonprimary airports that the FAA has and allow us to direct 

resources to larger airports 

FAA staff reductions have already been disproportionately large in the airports 

program due to the buyout program, so we do not anticipate the need for 

further reduction at this time. 

Question If the program is expanded, how many additional states would 
FAA recommend adding? 

Answer. The Administration has proposed three additional states be allowed 
to participate in the block grant program during fiscal year 1997 

- Such incremental additions have been proven to work well during the first two 

rounds of state selections, which has resulted in a successful program. 

The qualified states should be phased in so airport sponsors and their 

contractors, state aviation agencies, as well as FAA regional offices, each have 

necessary assistance or time to adjust. 

Question Does FAA want to continue with the same program guidelines or 
change the guidelines^ 



323 



Answer. FAA does not recommend changing the aviation block grant 
guidelines, which presently provide flexibility, although changes may be recommended 
at a later date pending the FAA reform process. 

" FAA has granted 2 exemptions from Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 156, 
which prohibits use of Airport Improvement Program funds for block grant 
program administration in order to test the concept. 
~ FAA has tailored grants to suit the needs of individual states and airport 
sponsors so that not all nonprimary airports are necessarily included in each 
block grant. 

LETTERS OF INTENT 

Question Under FAA's existing policy, letters of intent arc restricted to air 
side projects, with primary consideration given to airports that have over 20,000 
hours of annual delay. In addition, under congressional direction and FAA policy, not 
more than 50 percent of available discretionary funds will be used for LOI payments. 
Under the Administration's request, will there be enough money to issue additional 
Letters of Intent? 

Answer. Under the Administration's proposal, there will be ample funding to 
honor all existing LOI. There will be little reserve, however, with which to 
contemplate approval of additional LOIs. Annual payments under existing LOIs will 
fall below $100 million af^er 1999, however, it appears likely that the long term 
funding levels of AIP will not support major new LOIs. An LOI issued in 1997 under 
the assumption of continued AIP levels of $1.35 billion or more, for instance, could 
easily be within the policy constraints, but a subsequent reduction in out-year AIP 
fijnding could create conditions putting FAA in conflict with its own policy. 



Question Please provide the Committee a listing 


of all the outstanding letters 


of intent that must be met in fiscal 


year 1996, and those that will be honored in fiscal 


year 1997. 






Answer. The list follows: 






Outstanding LOI 


'S For Fiscal Year 1996 And 1997 




($ in Millions) 






1996 


1997 


AL Birmingham 


$0.4 


- 


CA Sacramento 


4.8 


$4.8 


CO Denver 


29.9 


29.9 


DC Washington Dulles 


1.5 


4.5 


DC Washington National 


6.0 


9.4 


FL Daytona Beach 


1.7 ^ 


1.7 


FL Jacksonville 


3.3 


- 


GA Savannah 


2.0 


2.0 


IL Belleville 


14.0 


14.0 


IN Indianapolis 


9.8 


13.6 


KY Covington 


16.6 


12.7 


KY Louisville 


14.3 


16.1 


LA New Orleans 


11.6 


11.8 


MI Detroit 


14.0 


14.1 


MS Columbus 


0.4 


0.4 



NV Reno 


6.5 


NY Buffalo 


9.6 


RJ Providence 


6,0 


SC Florence 


0.4 


SC Hilton Head 


0.5 


TN Memphis 


11.9 


TN Nashville 


1.7 


TX Austin 


11.4 


TX Dallas-Ft, Worth 


12.5 


TX McAllen 


0.8 


TX Midland 


1.3 



324 



6.5 
8.1 
6.5 
0.4 
0.5 
13.8 
2.2 
11.4 
12.5 

1.3 
Totals $192.9 $198.2 

Question. Under the Administration's budget request, what percent of 
discretionary grant funding is made up by LOls? 

Answer. In 1997, the scheduled discretionary payments for LOI projects is 
$152.1 million. Since the administration's request includes $325 million for 
discretionary funding, the LOI payments would be 46.8 percent of the discretionary 
amount. 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT 
RADAR SYSTEMS 

Question, Please provide the Committee an update on how the $7 million was 
expended in the Facilities and Equipment account, and the $4 million in the Research, 
Engineering and Development account for runway incursion reduction. What 
particular low-cost ASDE type systems and non-radar technologies were investigated, 
developed, and/or researched with the funding provided in fiscal year 1 996? 

Answer. Of the $7 million, a total of $5 million is being used to fund a contract 
for the installation, testing, and evaluation of a phased-array radar at Houston Hobby 
Airport. A Raytheon marine band radar was installed in Milwaukee at General 
Mitchell International Airport and is currently undergoing evaluation. A continuous 
wave radar manufactured by ELTA will be installed at Salt Lake City for test and 
evaluation. The remaining $2 million is being used to investigate the potential of 
ground loop technology to aid in the prevention of runway incursions. The FAA 
anticipates awarding an initial contract for a loop technology demonstration 
application and is considering two contractors, Teledyne and Orincon, who have 
experience in development and implementation of airport surface detection loop 
technology. Long Beach and Burbank California airports are locations under 
consideration for the loop technology demonstrations. 

The $4 million in R,E&D was allocated to the Surface Movement Advisor 
(SMA) Program. Of the $4 million, $2.4 million was available for contract dollars; 
$1,5 million was allocated to Personnel Compensation, Benefits, and Travel for FAA 
R,E&D slots, and $0, 1 million was rescinded. 

In fiscal year 1996, an initial SMA prototype was deployed to the Hartsfield 
Atlanta Airport and installed in the ATC tower, TRACON, ARTCC, airline ramp 
towers and dispatch centers, and airport operations office, to conduct fast track 
operational research and "real-world" development activities 



Question. What plans does FAA have in this area in fiscal year 1 997? 

Answer. The period of performance to install, test and evaluate phased-array 
radar at Houston Hobby Airport has a period of performance of approximately 24 
months and will continue into fiscal year 1997. The ELTA continuous wave radar 
which will be installed at Salt Lake City and the Raytheon marine radar at Milwaukee 
will both undergo test and evaluation in fiscal year 1997. The final report regarding 
ground loop technology is planned for completion September 1997. After these 
efforts, there is no plan for fijrther evaluation. 

The current level of proposed fiscal year 1997 funding will only support the 
prototype operation at Atlanta until a production retrofit is available. 

SYSTEM CAPACITY 

Question. Under the major activities anticipated in fiscal year 1996 the system 
capacity planning improvements program was to provide a recommendation on 
national standards for simultaneous instrument landing system approaches to dual 
parallel runways spaced 3,000 feet apart using precision runway monitors and offset 
localizers. Please, in summary, provide the Committee a description of and the results 
of your recommendations on multiple runway procedures. 

Answer. The simulation evaluation of the national standards for simultaneous 
instrument landing system approaches to dual parallel runways spaced 3,000 feet apart 
using precision runway monitor and offset localizer was successflilly completed in 
fiscal year 1996. This national standard, or procedure, was recommended for 
implementation with requirements for pilot training for breakout maneuvers, improved 
controller training, and enhancement to the current ground-to-air communication 
system 

Question. What airports currently have the precision runway monitor 
equipment and which airports does the FAA recommend receiving the existing 
precision runway monitor equipment that has been purchased? 

Answer The FAA has purchased five production precision runway monitor 
systems. The first production system is installed at Minneapolis St. Paul International 
Airport and is undergoing field testing. The FAA recommends Lambert St. Louis 
International, John F. Kennedy International, and Philadelphia International as the 
next three airports to receive systems. The fifth system will be installed at either 
Atlanta Hartsfield International or Pittsburgh International depending on each 
airport's plan to construct a new runway. To date, neither airport has made a firm 
commitment. 

Question. Given the recommendations in this area, what other airports with 
existing or planned runways would benefit from additional precision runway monitor 
equipment? 

Answer. If Atlanta Hartsfield, Pittsburgh International, or Baltimore 
Washington International Airports decide to complete their planned runways, then the 
fifth precision runway monitor system would be installed at the site with the earliest 
runway completion date. The remaining airports as well as others could benefit from 
precision runway monitor equipment or a ftiture, low-cost alternative technology. 



326 



WEATHER PROGRAM 

Question. Please break out for the Committee the request of $6,411,000 
among how much will be for aviation weather analysis forecasting, meteorological 
sensors for aviation support, and aeronautical hazards research. 
Answer. The $6,41 1,000 is broken out as follows: 

Aviation Weather Analysis and Forecasting: $4,284,000 

Meteorological Sensors for Aviation Support: 1 , 1 62,000 

Aeronautical Hazards Research: 965.000 

$6,411,000 

Question. Please break out the airport technology request of $6,000,000 
among its subcomponents: airport planning and design technology, airport pavement 
technology, national dynamic airport pavement tests; and airport safety technology 

Answer The following is a breakout of the Airport Technology budget 
request figures for fiscal year 1997: 

Airport Planning and Design Technology $ 305,000 

Airport Pavement Technology 1 ,600,000 

National Dynamic Airport Pavement Tests 1,550,000 

Airport Safety Technology 2.545.000 

$6,000,000 

FIRE RESEARCH AND SAFETY 

Question Please break out the $6,993,000 request among the 
subcomponents: materials fire safety, fire management systems; and fire resistant 
materials. 

Answer. The following is a breakout of the Fire Research and Safety budget 
request figures for fiscal year 1997: 

Materials Fire Safety $1,500,000 

Fire Management Systems 2,728,000 

Fire Resistant Materials 2.765.000 

$6,993,000 

ADVANCED MATERIALS/STRUCTURAL SAFETY 

Question Please break out the $3,065,000 request among the 
subcomponents: advanced materials, structures, structural safety, rotorcraft; and 
analytical modeling seat restraint. 

Answer. The following is a break out of the Advanced Materials/Structural 
Safety budget request figures for fiscal year 1997: 

Structural Safety $1,633,000 

Structural Safety 521,000 

Rotorcraft 738,000 

Analytical Modeling/Seat Restraint 374,000 
Advanced Materials Structures 1.432.000 

$3,065,000 



Question. Please break out the fiscal year 1997 request of $3,779,000 among 
the subcomponents: engine reliability; engine structural safety; and future fuels. 

Answer. The following is a breakout of Propulsion and Fuel Systems budget 
request figures for fiscal year 1997: 

Engine Reliability $1,1 69,000 

Engine Structural Safety 1 ,2 1 2,000 

Future Fuels/Safety 1.398.000 

$3,779,000 

FLIGHT SAFETY/ATMOSHPERIC HAZARDS 

Question Please break out the request of $2,063,000 among the components: 
flight safety, atmospheric hazards (aircraft icing and electromagnetic environment). 

Answer. The following is a breakout of the Flight Safety/ Atmospheric 
Hazards budget figures for fiscal year 1997; 

Atmospheric Hazards $ 1 ,785,000 

Aircraft Icing 1,385,000 

Electromagnetic Environment 400,000 
Flight Safety 278.000 

$2,063,000 

AGING AIRCRAFT 

Question. Please break out the $13,900,000 aging aircraft request among the 
subcomponents: structural integrity; maintenance, and inspection. Please compare 
this to the account's $20,000,000 fiscal year 1996 level for each subcomponent 

Answer. The following is a break out and comparison of the Aging Aircraft 
budget request figures for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997: 

Fiscal Year 1996 Fiscal Year 1 997 

Structural Integrity $8,699,000 $8,689,000 

Maintenance and Inspection 5.063.000 5.200.000 

$13,762,000 $13,889,000 

It should be noted that in fiscal year 1996 this budget request included a third 
subcomponent entitled "Aging Aircraft Information" which was funded at $6,238,000. 
In fiscal year 1 997, this subcomponent was expanded to include not only aircraft but 
also air operators, repair stations, schools, and airmen. It is now funded separately as 
a budget line item entitled, "Aviation Safety Risk Analysis" at $6,1 16,000 

Question. Under the amount requested for aging aircraft, how much would go 
for the NDI research at Iowa State University, and how much would go for Sandia 
Labs? 

Answer. At the amount requested, Iowa State University would receive $1.25 
million and Sandia Labs would receive $2.25 million. 

EXPLOSIVES AND WEAPONS DETECTION 

Question. Please break out the request of $27,387,000 among the sub 
components: bulk explosives/weapons detection; trace detection; and combined 
technology. 



Answer The FAA's Explosives and Weapon Detection Program is broken 
down into application vectors as follows: 

($000) 
Products and Activities Funding 

Checked Baggage Bulk Detection Systems $ 9,532 

Carry on Baggage Bulk Detection Systems 2,080 

Combined Technology Detection Systems 2,450 

Trace Explosives Detection Technology 4,293 

Personnel Screening Device Development 1,047 

Scientific Research and Laboratory Test Support 5,020 

Cargo Screening Studies and Feasibility Evaluation 2.965 



$27,387 



AVIATION SECURITY/HUMAN FACTORS 



Question. Please compare and contrast the fiscal year 1996 funding level of 
$2,549,000 to the 1997 request of $5,039,000 among the major subcomponents: 
screener training/testing; passenger profiling, and human systems integration. Please 
explain to the Committee why the aviation security/human factors research is slated 
for a doubling of funds in fiscal year 1997. 

Answer. In addition to the fiscal year 1996 funding level of $2,549,000 in the 
R,E«feD appropriation, the Aviation Security Human Factors Program received more 
than half of the fiscal year 1996 funding of $10 million provided in the F&E 
appropriation for airport demonstrations of security equipment This funding has been 
used to, among other things, develop and deploy prototype Screener Proficiency 
Evaluation and Reporting Systems (SPEARS) for both conventional X-ray screening 
devices as well as the computed tomography (CT) explosives detection system 
certified by the FAA The SPEARS program focuses on screener selection, training 
and performance monitoring to increase the contribution of the operator to overall 
system performance 

The fiscal year 1997 funding request of $5,039,000 actually represents a 
substantial reduction compared to fiscal year 1996 This fijnding will be used to 
assure that equipment designs provide user friendly interfaces for optimal performance 
of the human operators and apply the threefold— selection, training and performance 
monitoring-SPEARS program to maturing detection technologies. New detection 
systems include devices for screening bottles for dangerous substances, millimeter- 
wave scanning of passengers for nonmetallic weapons and explosives, and trace portal 
or hand wand screening of passengers for minute residual amounts of explosives. 

Development continues on an automated passive passenger profile for 
domestic application which uses data from the airlines computer reservation system to 
identify passengers that need additional screening. In fiscal year 1996, Northwest 
Airlines will complete the computer programming to function system-wide on the 
Worldspan reservation system. The passive profile will then be adapted to other 
airline computer reservation systems. When the domestic passenger profile is 
completed in fiscal year 1997, research will focus on an interactive profile for use in 
higher threat situations overseas. 



329 



AIRCRAFT HARDENING 

Question. Of the amount requested, $1.4 million, how much is for container 
hardening, and how much for aircraft? 

Answer The entire $1.4 million is for aircraft hardening The FAA has 
identified a short-term solution with hardened baggage containers and is making 
progress on long-term solutions focusing on improving aircraft design and structure. 
Our container hardening research is completed, and we are currently sponsoring one- 
year air carrier operational demonstrations of hardened containers to determine their 
suitability for widespread deployment. 

FLIGHT DECKS/MAINTENANCE/SYSTEM HUMAN FACTORS 

Question Please break out the 1997 request of $10,898,000 among the 
subcategories; flight deck human factors, aircraft maintenance human factors, and 
system integration. 

Answer. The $10,898,000 is broken out as follows: 

Flight deck human factors is $7,198,000. 

Aircraft maintenance human factors is $1.5 million. 

Systems integration human factors is $2.2 million. 

CONTRACTS 

Question. Please list for the Committee the name of the contractor, amount 
of the contract, and purpose of the contract for all those receiving R,E&D ftinds in 
fiscal years 1995 and 1996. List only those contracts where the contract amount was 
above $100,000. 

Answer The list follows. 



88SS 

oo r^ o in 




ooiocvcMcoin — CM— r^ 




I III lull 



8 






.y ii 9- > 
n ^ ^ < 



P (» n .i 



< < <U O 



5; o 
ej2 



111! 

■D oo 5 " 

< O eg (^ 



o Id. 

Se 

O B 



o o 

E y .y 

i<l8 



2 2 

< < 5 



331 



jz §?!§§ s 



e ^ 



o o y 



6^ 



LL. 5 CO ^ CO 



i! 



=e o 



z < 



^§§§§ 




I 



r § 8 

< U < ^ U 2 



P5 — CM ^ i75 




Is S 



a a CO Z 



5 ^ Q Z > < 




||888^ 



2i 

a o o) 

8il 

« c: O 



O) Cl)> 






IP 

CD Z CO 00 CO CO 



iii 

U U o 

ssi 



o2 

0) Lj. U o 



11^ 



^ a. 



i o u 



8^<^ 

■la- 

S! o 5 
o y o 

o 



a^ al 



£ 



S8 



, tD 






£i 



:^ s 



2 O £ g 
S^l c 
- o ^ -p. 

oo !2 £) 3 

§< ^1 

03=0 



ss 



U !3 



S I: 



i o D 

O <B z U 

■*= <" . ,^ 

^< p E S 

^ O E o 0) 

r o U a 



9^ t 






si III 

y c <i> t 5 

?;e ai 
5? §2 g^ 



? s 1 1 § 

o o u y Q 

lilii 
if !S 

g&8p 

C «> ■£ O .->; 



I -c > < 

Oz z 






O c 

g o 






I 



3 Q 

0) O) o 5 y 0) 

iliifi 

ca2:u9 2 S-2o2 

^ s i 2 i i ^ I 

<E53ri^2E^«, 

ootcOaJcP;i..y 

ooO>.o^o5;;gQ, 



o t a o t 

2 " C TJ 

a> P- -c; ■> r; 

u at u 6 o 

a O O ^ a ^ 



o <« Ql o 

c i o c 

• a "! 5 Q 



O P -D 

&z o<g^*| 
C)>$<<U<2 



0--OCN-0— OCM — to — Jnco — CM ~ 



y 



I i 



^ s 



5>B 

^ Si 
I ii 

o 5 ® 



5 b 
See 



go 



^ i 

E B) 



ft c ® 6 
^ 0) o E y. 



3 O t: 



<>^2<^y ^yy 



£ < 

CBQ. P 

O c: C 

C < O 

O t/1 Q. 

a < < 

» < < 

u u 



a ^- >- c o 



%9 



58 



illEl 



c c 






o Q 

o o 

o b 

g Q 

o o 

u u 

0) (D 

u u 

88 

(D © 



oooo-o'^ioo'^cN — oin'OoocM 

OOO'TOOCOinO'OiOCOOOOOOQ— C3 
OOOOCNI-^ — OfOOI^O — — iOfO — 




O $ li/ O 



•D 7' c 

o, uB 

' o o o.|^UlU^ 

;i§g|8|2|8 



c 
2 9 



B 
y 

c ^ 

i| 

E B 
o o 



If 






o =^ 

B 



334 



? §§Bs§S??§S§S§§ i g8§8^ 



O P 



11 

til 

< o e 



^ ad 

f?5 O p 




i 5 1 2 ^ 

v> Lu O a. (/I 



* 1 



s.^ 



i5^52St^ 



- S o) 
:3 'd>.c 

o S © 



is 
< > 



9- X 

H 
lip 



i§ 



^.^^^ 

O X TJ u 

£ a; $ c 
P ■£ o 0) 
E o 3 "5 

lilt 
& o ^ «) 



^ < Z 
O Z Q > 



1 



^ 



?B?I8g^8S8Sg S 



i^§ 



o o E 



Eg 



2 2 



0) a 



S^ t^ s; £ 

ills 

o E 8 $ 



o? 






u I 
E ^5^ 



c « ^ £ 

c y 8 ^ 

oj i £ y 

S 5 ^ ^ 



® 2 

I c Q. 

; |i 

p g o «> u -3 
aj o - E ^ 5 
35 o S. I t o 

p o> C - o S 

t b (1) O *r C 

2 ts -n u o o 



E^ 



EE 



(1) <B C 

Q U < 



n o 

<i> 6 t; 

TD a S, 

0) 2 8" 

9 <B c 



tl 



o S -r ° 5 



Ib8| 



?2 



I? II 



2 z> » a) 
•^ 2 .o $ < 
§0,500 



«g=?B 



E I 



^ 0) 

- (]) 



I 



y o 
§ o 
•- 2 

ill 

r S O) 

eIi 

O) O -D 

c x: ^ 

S c» o 
^ c n 



O f, 



I! 
fl 



0) -n < 



5o o z 



?5 82S2S 

•go «» TI — CM CN 



s 

a 
I 
o 
$ 

< 



"D U O 

III 

O Q 



III I 



EF 



3>Z 



O <D 2- o> <D 

IIHI 



c a 2* 

o o — ® 



SS — OOooScoOoScoi^8r^Sof^ooO'-o25iOO'PO&5 
ooodO'q-CN — — — — — er> — — — CMCsior^ — 1 — — — — r^ 




337 



3-2 ^ ^ 

■OB 05 



0?% 

^ 5 ° g 
c R $ I 

5 Q-2 o 

11 Si 

^ o p ^ 
* o o£ 

1 ooi 
p .« -^ <» 
u .3? o o 

- o S ^ 

s 2 ^ o 

u ® a 5 

2 ^ o "' 
u a o Q. 

3 o :M p 
■D m >■ Q) 
c 3! o > 
O (D C (D 
O Q < Q 



sp^ 

E R R'2' 

0) O O 0) 

■§. o Q- "D 

2 CB E o 
c .£ g c 
o a, *; o 

> Q 5 § 

E "J $ > 
o O > (1) 
Q U £ O 



i c 

E B 

C . d) ® -t 52 (U 

§62|8S^r 

O<<0DQ.G:toZ 



5J^ 5 2 g j^ ?5 S R i 



8S2^|88 



p 
a 
a> 

c 
p 
o 

ll 
°§ 
§& 

O O 

t o 
5|l 

c 3> - 

§ S! y 

§€2 
bSo 

g $ E 
- o R 



■D ;?> > 



y 



III 



I 9^ 5 






~ = fj 

(D r B 

£ £§ 

n P 5) 



2 2 5 

a 0^ E 
>- 3 >- 
0—0 
a a a 

aiB 
o > p 



o £ c 



o ^ c 



C Q) 0) 

5 £ tf 

D) « O) 
SIS 

i|8 

o o a 

^ ^ -2 

a a o 
o o o 

(D 0) D 

> > n 



E < 



(D 'D 

i 11 

O com 
b !!? £ S' < 
° 5 U O o •^ 

^,g-5'2o°oc£ 

p > c > > ^ = .g> 



2 c o 



ego 
a> o fc c 



^ E 



TIM C3CMO — OCMQ — r-ioininQinQ-ooQOujvo & 



.2.5 



<^ 8 5 







eta 

e 9 o 

CL X 



IS 
11 



> &^ 

5 5 



III 



s§§iyiiiio||||iiiS ^ 




11 



22 



Sg8§ § 



S a< 1 
(^ (^ Q. a 



. I 



< 

O S > 5 



a ' 



339 



„ O O -O O r- 

ZZ — -CT r^ CM Q 

O CN ■^ CM CM O 

g cm" -■ CM 



u w w < ^ 
y O ^ Q .g> 

O 5 Z > § 



—■ _• ^- CM" 



o 0" J 

£ "O -D 



Se>I 



c E §> 

111 

S PS 
o p ^ 



O «o <D 

® S c 

E 9 t 

(D — O 

CO c a 

o o a 

8 r) b 
5 9!$ 

O O Q) 

S J3 - 

^6 ?? 



E H 
o g ^ 

S^8 



^ $ £ 

e.H§ 

3 O O 



S m 



? E o 



?2: c » 



lit 

? y E 



■D U C 
(D O - 

o "- o 



o =£ -ft 



S ^ o 

» c o 

^ I § 

o ? u 

« <I> <1> 

£ o^ 

« o o 

•5; -a' E 



; » i & 

1 Q iS 5 



P CB a, 



i' 



88 



£ E 
o B 



l< 



o 0) 

® 5 y 
^ o o 



2 2 

< rf -S 

52& 

■f o 5 
.e o 6 



O O ^ ? 



C O -2 

o o b 

S c 2 
2 o o 
-^ £ y 

Hi 

u o <u 

O c ^ 

c|2 

O O £ 

^ 5.(3 

X -^ o 



1 o S 

2 £P 

:; o o 
< 3 $ 

o ° =■ 

J, Q. 0) 
55 P C 

fii 

< Q l5 



6 2 

i -S 

C S £ 

O J J 



8a 



^ o V Q- 

•2 9- ^ c 

c S Q o 

O m U O 

U SJ <D O 

£ Q ^- o 

> 0^ o 

O ^ S Q 



^ S 



I ; I; Is IB i 



^.H 



y o 



ssisi^fE 

m<!oZ>=)=)ZO 



340 



• ok 



BS8888I8 i 



ILf 



C -D 



^^ c 



Sy^ 



^ 6 « I ^ 

^ £ " £ -D 



o 5. B ^ $ 



nil 

n 

Ipii 

o u ^ t; < 

E 1 E £ E 
o J o o o 

lu O m m ui 



II 

o o 

1^ 
^£ 
>- $ 

•^ £ O 

IS? 

m o c 
^S £ 




|oo 



^zz5 >z 



§ :^- 



I § 



111 II i i 



2 U 



5= O CL < 



5:2 



9> « 



°2E 



: m O 5 < 



341 



b o 
o <» 

El 



2 c 

P j: c 
811 



a y y 
K= u o 



^B 



|S 



=^ J CO 

B 2e 
z u 5 



1^ 

O. CL 



5 S a> 

< ■§ i 

o55 



^ < j= 

< U 5 



o o o 

IIS I 

o - o c 

= 5 o - 

5 « -S S 

^ •s.o 5 

- cO o 

o >s -o S 



8^ § 



5i 

ce5 c 



<D < 

< £ 



342 



II 



— • _■ N _■ 



r) r^ irt 






E 5 



E 8 
0) c 

11 



^ - 

■? 



^ s 



U 3 o 



§° §S^§?8« 



.o E 



2 o 

■O (D C 
(U O 1) 

III 



ag-l 



St ? 

io O P 

til 
Ill 

5 



II 

O) o 



t o < 



III 

CO > , , 



§< 



o 

3 
I. 

|6 

©■DO 



o ^ 



< < < U 



o 
^1 



343 



O CM 
O O CM 

cm" cm" 







<B E 

8<S 



« 5 2 rs 



i t i 
ass 

■'s _ o o 

lifll 

:^ 5 < C -D -D 

u2:£zzOtoco> 



fl) t 
> OJ o 
$ o o> 

"c c ^ Zj 
® a c« 5 

£ "D :0 2 
? o ^. c 
o E ?g 

CO (D ~ t 

5 t;" S g 

"§.?§ 

<S§s 

2 O i? Q 



^ g iT 



"5 O .9? 

Q) O D Z 
' Q Z > 



344 



€ 8 



u b 
is 

■6; n 
S o 



IS 



fc to 
< r) 



0) h £ 

Poo 
a 3 a 
- o 5 c 
c > a> g 
P <u c -5 

3 Q) 0) <-> 

I 5 Jo 
f P^o 

lis? 

^ fc £- OJ 
«> o 3 c 

= t -^ (D 

o o ?5 -R 



<55 

o 5 

U i: 



^1' 

£ o ■ 



E S 
o o 



go 



II 



$3> 



§8? 



- E 

O 55 

^& 



S2S 

111 

"5)b2 
i o 5 
^oE 

§11 



C -J: 



0^0 O-O-OCO^lOOOCMlO 



o £ 

O) (1) 

p 

O 2 5? 

^E c 

§li. 

^ O ^ Q) 

«<!>££ 
$■0 0) 

S 8 § 5 

O ^ O 0) 

'_' S 5 P 



a^ 






o 






O Q 



211 



9 o^fe 
^ 9 6>g 
I-Sll 

0) D 2 t 

- D ■&; U 

8 g g ^ 

c £ E o 

^ 2 2-5 

o t :t -6 

u < < < 



00 § -6 s 
E^2 § 

0) o t; n 
a >: t o 

ills 






5 u 






■iDSc^l^ 



"5 2 

£ CO 

c 2 



345 




SI§§II§2§S2§^ 



- 8 



^ «j * 5 
o Q o -a 

^ o O Q 



a .2 

(DcSgOoc.O 
S" Q 3 = D U £ oj 



2 o 



MoQig 



— o ^ 

. ilii I 



n 



^%^ 



346 



ill 



ill 



® ai o E o o o 



o *. 
&2 



§§=|g5s^§5 



it 

PI 



E o -^ < 1 O 



IISI 



I 1 



« gag g S 

S"^ ^ S S D o 

aO-S £ > £ > 

5 •« 035-5 5 

< e: d.> < 23 < 




347 



I5§§§| 



- I - 

§ -R ^ a H S 

o ^ ^ 2 o B 

S S > > > m >^ 




0) Q 

g (B a) 

0) (D to 

2 8 g- 



ret 

o 2 3 
III 



£ o a a o o 

^5 ? ® S s§ a 

zzw<^^r>rDO> y 



348 



f5 



349 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DOMENICI 
ROSWELL RADAR STATUS 

Question. Over the past five years, v/e have been working with the FAA to 
establish a stand-aloneTerminal Radar Approach Control Facility (TRACON) at the 
Rosweil Industrial Air Center airport in Roswell, New Mexico. I appreciate the 
FAA's monthly updates to the New Mexico Congressional delegation. The last report 
provided to my office indicated that the project is currently on schedule. What is the 
current status of the Roswell radar project? 

Answer. The ASR-9 radar was delivered in April 1996. Installation is in 
progress, and the radar is scheduled to be commissioned in September 1996. The 
TRACON is under construction and is scheduled to be commissioned in September 
1997. 

Question Is construction of the airport traffic control tower and terminal 
radar approach control underway? 
Answer. Yes. 

Question. How much of this phase of the project is complete? 
Answer. The construction phase is 75 percent complete. 

Question. What is the current schedule for completion of this phase? 
Answer. Construction is estimated to be completed by February 1997. 
Commissioning of the air traffic control tower is estimated for September 1997. 

Question What is the status of the airport surveillance radar (ASR-9)? Is 
construction underway? 

Answer. The ASR-9 radar was delivered in April 1996 and installation is in 
progress 

Question. What is the anticipated commissioning date for the ASR-9 at 
Roswell? 

Answer. The radar is scheduled to be commissioned in September 1996. 

Question. Do you anticipate any additional delays with this project? 
Answer. No additional delays are anticipated. 

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH/AGING AIRCRAFT CENTER 

Question. Mr. Hinson, the Administration's fiscal year 1997 budget includes a 
request of $196 million for the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development 
program, an increase of $10 million, or 5 percent, above the 1996 level. In your 
testimony, you emphasize the Administration's concern for safety. 

You are aware of my ongoing interest in work to ensure the safety of our 
commercial air fleets One of the exciting programs funded through the FAA is the 
Aging Aircraft Non-destructive Evaluation Center (AANC) in Albuquerque. This 



24-106 96-12 



350 



Center has been supported by the FAA for the past five years, and I am pleased that 
this funding arrangement was continued. 

In fiscal year 1995, the aircraft safety program was fijnded at $25 million, 
showing a significant interest by Congress in this area of the FAA research budget. 
Even with the significant budget constraints in 1996, Congress maintained this activity 
at $20 million. Although the overall research budget is increased, this crucial activity 
is being reduced by the Administration to $13.9 million for fiscal year 1997, This is a 
reduction of $6.1 million, or 30.5 percent. In view of the rapid aging of the nation's 
commercial aviation fleet, what is the Administration's rationale for a significant 
reduction in the aging aircraft activity? 

Answer. There has not been a significant reduction in the aging aircraft 
activity in fiscal year 1997. In fiscal year 1996, the Aging Aircraft Safety Program 
included a major activity. Aging Aircraft Information Systems, which was ftinded at 
$6 2 million. In the fiscal year 1997 budget request, this initiative was expanded to 
include, not only aircraft, but also air operators, repair stations, schools, and airmen. 
It is now ftinded separately as a budget line item entitled Aviation Safety Risk 
Analysis at a $6.1 million level. Hence, the fiinding level for Aging Aircraft Structural 
Safety and Maintenance and Inspection R&D activities in fiscal year 1996 was actually 
$13.8 million, as compared to the fiscal year 1997 request of $13.9 million. 

Question. What ongoing activities will be sustained with these resources? 
What activities will be reduced or eliminated? 

Answer. The Aging Aircraft Structural Integrity and Maintenance and 
Inspection R&D program areas took a 29 percent budget cut from $19.6 million in 
fiscal year 1995 to $13.8 million in fiscal year 1996. With continued ftinding in fiscal 
year 1997 at $13.9 million, or about the same level as fiscal year 1996, the reduced 
base R&D program in the continued airworthiness areas of structural safety 
widespread fatigue damage, engine life predictive methodologies, inspection, 
maintenance and repair, corrosion, airborne data monitoring, and human performance 
for aviation maintenance will be continued. Activities in these areas were all reduced 
between fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996. 

Question. How much will the FAA devote to the Aging Aircraft Non- 
destructive Evaluation Center in the fiscal year 1997 budget request? 

Answer. The FAA will devote $2.25 million to the Aging Aircraft Non- 
destructive Evaluation Center in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. 

Question. Are the requested ftmds sufficient to support ongoing programs at 
AANC, which are largely devoted to the development of technologies to inspect aging 
aircraft in commercial service? 

Answer. This ftinding level is considered sufficient to accomplish the FAA's 
highest priority work, including technology transfer activities initiated and ftinded in 
fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996. This fiinding level, however, is not sufficient to 
pursue some of the proposed long term research requirements. 

Question. What activities envisioned in the current fiinding agreement would 
not be supported under the Administration's budget request? 



351 



Answer. Under the Administration's budget request, the Sandia National 
Laboratory-supplied full time manpower support for the AANC will be reduced by 
approximately 30 percent. 

Specific efforts that will be terminated include work on advanced composite 
materials for aircraft fliselage metal repairs currently under development with 
Lockheed Aircraft Company and Delta Airlines, and development of advanced 
composite materials standards for aircraft repair usage currently under development 
with the Society of Automotive Engineers. 

Question. Why does DOT then project funding levels for fiscal year 1998 and 
fiscal year 1999 at an excess of $17 million? Why reduce the program for one year 
and then ramp up expenditures in the subsequent two years? Is this good policy? 

Answer Initially the R,E&D program was planned to be more aggressive in 
its research The fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 planning levels still reflect the 
last FAA five-year funding plan proposed before it was revised to reflect current 
outyear planning targets. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE US SPACEPORTS 

Question. FAA Administrator David Hinson, the Office for Commercial 
Space Transportation (OCST) Strategic Plan is to help position the U.S. commercial 
space transportation industry as the dominant supplier in the global market for launch 
services over the next decade. The President's fiscal year 1997 budget request for 
OCST is $6,169,000. What roles does OCST envision the States having 
responsibilities in the certification standards and monitoring and how does OCST 
envision the coordination to be accomplished? 

Answer. The Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 
(AST) plans to establish, through notice and comment rulemaking, safety standards 
for commercial spaceports and launch site operations Under the Commercial Space 
Launch Act (CSLA), States may adopt their own standards that are in addition to or 
more stringent than requirements prescribed under the CSLA as long as they are 
consistent with the CSLA The Interagency Working Group that is currently 
considering issues relating to federal interaction with commercial spaceports intends 
to consider the issue of coordination with the states.. 

Question. What do you see as the FAA's OCST role in helping to stimulate 
the development of the commercial space transportation infrastructure? 

Answer. In addition to its primary responsibility for commercial launch 
operations safety, AST is responsible for the international competitiveness of all 
aspects of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. The role, along with 
the Department of Commerce, is to promote innovative arrangements between the 
U.S. Government and the private sector, as well as State and local governments, to 
ensure that adequate US infrastructure exists to support growth in launch demand. 
AST further supports the industry by developing and making available reliable 
forecasts of commercial launch services demand. For example, AST prepares an 
assessment of the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) commercial satellite and launch market on 
an annual basis, and the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory 
Committee (COMSTAC) each year develops a projection of launch demand for 
Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites. AST plans to merge the LEO and 



352 



GEO forecasts into a combined projection of global supply and demand for 
commercial launch services. 

Safe, low-cost, and reliable launch services are the critical factors to market 
success for commercial launch providers. We are very cognizant of the cost impact of 
over-regulation. Therefore, AST carefully limits its focus to those performance- 
related requirements and standards that are needed to ensure public health and safety, 
while providing maximum flexibility to industry in achieving those requirements. AST 
is committed to a regulatory program that allows for the use of new safety concepts 
and systems, such as the GPS for flight monitoring. 

Question. How do you differentiate the role of OCST from NASA in 
governing the development of the new space transportation vehicles? 

Answer. AST is responsible for safety of commercial launch operations and 
ultimately for the certification and regulation of new vehicle systems. AST works 
with NASA and the industry teams involved in the new vehicle development program. 
AST's role is to develop a regulation and certification process for new vehicles 
working with industry and NASA to ensure safety is designed into the system and 
regulations are in place. 

NASA is responsible for research and development of an operational reusable 
vehicle program. The AST is working as a partner in the process to ensure that the 
commercial perspective is addressed. This also provides AST with the valuable 
opportunity to participate in the development program and testing which will greatly 
benefit the approval process for licensing the commercial vehicles that are the result of 
this initiative. 

Question. How closely does OCST work with NASA, and other federal and 
State agencies to make sure that the schedules of all elements within the development 
of the spaceports remain consistent? 

Answer. AST held a public meeting on April 24, 1996, to explore several 
areas of interest to industry, including the issue of federal oversight of and interaction 
with commercial spaceports. Immediately following this meeting, interagency (U.S. 
Government-only) sessions were held with representatives from each state's spaceport 
entity to discuss their individual concerns in greater depth. Similar meetings were 
held with space industry representatives on May 21-22, 1996, to discuss the 
user/customer perspective on such ventures and issues. 

The information from these meetings will support the efforts of an Interagency 
Working Group, which is co-chaired by AST and the Department of Defense and also 
includes the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Departments of 
Commerce and State. This Working Group will resolve a number of issues relating to 
Federal interaction with commercial spaceports, while remaining cognizant of the 
development schedules of each spaceport entity. Developing spaceports is a priority 
of this Administration and has the support of the White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy. 

Question We understand that industry sees a need to start the development of 
the certification processes for the new single stage to orbit reusable space 
transportation systems to be ready for a potential decision to proceed with the 
financing and development in the 1999 to 2000 time frame. Is it timely to start now 



353 



and what role does OCST need to undertake in developing and governing this new 
process? 

Answer. AST concurs with the industry view. The process of developing 
safety criteria and the actual approval process for reusable vehicles has already begun 
with an FAA Public Meeting in April 1996 to solicit input on a variety of issues, 
including Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) technology and its regulatory implications. 
AST believes that the development of certification or approval processes must be 
done with the participation of industry. This is a technology with vastly different 
safety issues and by working with industry we can derive standards that allow the 
greatest flexibility with the least burden while ensuring public safety. 

AST is already working with industry and NASA to ascertain technical design 
safety issues in order to facilitate commercial use of RLVs when the technology is 
mature 

Question. Is OCST adequately staffed and funded to undertake such a major 
effort'^ 

Answer. AST is concerned with having adequate resources to meet growing 
demands in the commercial space transportation industry. The increasing shift of 
space activity from the Government to the commercial sector has already been seen in 
an increase in DOT-licensed launches from federal launch sites from 12 in fiscal year 
1995, to 17 in fiscal year 1996, and 18 estimated for fiscal year 1997. 

The development of RLVs presents complex issues relative to their approval 
and licensing for AST. Issues extend to the international aspects of the operation of 
such vehicles. 

In addition to issues concerning reusable launch vehicles, AST is involved in 
the development of commercial spaceports at launch sites, at sites other than existing 
federal launch sites, that will require significant resources to ensure that public safety 
is protected At non-federal launch sites, there is no existing governmental presence 
at these new sites to assume the responsibility for safety. The FAA wants to work 
with Congress to be responsive to increasing industry needs. 

MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE FOR PILOTS 

Question. I recently had occasion to speak with some longtime pilots about 
the general status of aviation. One issue that concerned these experienced pilots 
without exception is the existing requirement that pilots flying large commercial 
aircraft are mandated to retire at the age of 60, As I understand it, this mandatory 
retirement standard was established in 1959 by regulation and is still FAA policy. Mr. 
Hinson, can you explain to me the rationale for this mandatory retirement regulation? 

Answer. At some age, everyone reaches a level of infirmity or unreliability 
that is unacceptable in a pilot in air transportation. That age will vary from person to 
person but cannot yet be predicted in a specific individual. Because it is unacceptable 
for these pilots to work until failure or until there is obvious impairment, the age of 60 
has served well as a regulatory limit since its inception. While science does not dictate 
the age of 60, that age is within the age range during which sharp increases in disease 
mortality and morbidity occur. 



354 



Question. If one of the chief concerns is airline safety, have there been any 
accidents indicating that pilots approaching the age of 60 have become physically 
incapacitated as the cause? 

Answer. Airline accidents attributed to medical incapacitations have been 
extremely rare. A recent study done under contract with the FAA concluded that, in 
respect to the relationship of accidents with pilot age, there is no hint of an increase in 
accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they near their 60th birthday. 

Question. Are all pilots barred from flying past the age of 60? 

Answer. The Age 60 Rule applies to all pilots in command and seconds in 
command operating under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). It 
does not apply to pilots operating under Parts 91 or 135 of the FAR, however. The 
FAA's statute requires the Administrator to hold air carriers to the highest possible 
safety standard and to make rules appropriate to the differences between Part 121 air 
carriers and other types of operations. In order to hold air carriers to the highest 
possible safety standard, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate to apply an age 
limitation to Part 121 pilots. 

Question. If there have been no documented accidents, even in commuter 
airlines where pilots over 60 currently fly, why is the FAA now extending this rule to 
commuter pilots over the next four years? 

Answer. The FAA determined that it could no longer justify most distinctions 
between Federal Aviation Regulations Part 121 operations and Part 135 commuter 
operations. Since commuter operations will now be conducted under Part 121, the 
Part 121 age 60 limitation, among many other Part 121 requirements, will apply. 

Question. I understand that the commercial aircraft pilots have rigorous 
medical and proficiency requirements that must be met to continue flying. With these 
controls and a good safety record, why is the FAA unwilling to reconsider this policy? 

Answer There are no generally applicable medical tests that can adequately 
determine which individual pilots are subject to incapacitation or to more subtle 
adverse conditions related to decline of cognitive functioning. Periodic proficiency 
and competency checks are intended to detect a pilot's performance deficiency and to 
correct those deficiencies before the pilot is returned to flight operations. These 
checks only verify the state of a pilot's performance at the time of the checks. They 
are not useful for detection of early or subclinical cognitive defects that may subtly 
degrade performance or which, in time, may progress to risks for errors in judgment 
or other actions that may jeopardize safety. These checks do not predict whether an 
individual pilot's performance will degrade at any time in the future as a result of age. 

Question. What have recent FAA studies shown on this point? Have any 
recommended increasing the retirement age for pilots past 60? 

Answer After reviewing various reports on accident rates that came to 
various conclusions, including "Report of the National Institute on Aging Panel on 
the Experienced Pilot Study" (1981), "Age 60 Project, Consolidated Database 
Experiments, Final Report" (1993), "The Influence of Total Flight Time, Recent 
Flight Time and Age on Pilot Accident Rates, Final Report" (1983), and General 
Aviation Safety Studies: Preliminary Analysis of Pilot Proficiency" (1991), the only 
thing that is clear is that there is no one "right answer" discovered through scientific 



355 



or medical studies. The basic question is one of public policy and determining how 
much risk is acceptable. At this time, the FAA cannot be assured that raising the age 
60 limit will maintain or raise the level of safety that the Age 60 Rule offers. 

Question. What are the policies in other countries as to the retirement age for 
commercial pilots? Do you think increasing the mandatory retirement age for pilots 
deserves to be revisited? 

Answer. The Joint Aviation Authorities in Europe have proposed to 
harmonize the European rule to allow pilots who have not reached the age of 65 to 
operate in multi-pilot operations, provided no more than one pilot in the cockpit is 
over the age of 60. This proposal has not yet been finalized. Some countries such as 
France and Germany have an Age 60 Rule similar to the United States, while other 
countries such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland allow pilots to fly after their 
60th birthdays. The ICAO safety standards establish an age limit of 60 for the pilot in 
command of large transport aircraft operating in international air transport service. 
ICAO standards do not limit the age of the second in command, although an age limit 
of 60 is recommended. In October 1994, a working group of ICAO's Air Navigation 
Commission prepared a working paper on the upper age limits for flight crew 
members. The group, acknowledging the lack of medical statistical information, 
recommended that the age limit not be changed. The basic question regarding the 
Age 60 Rule is one of public policy and determining how much risk is acceptable. At 
this time, the FAA cannot be assured that raising the age 60 limit will maintain or raise 
the level of safety that the Age 60 Rule offers. 

FAA SERVICES AND SUPPORT FINANCED BY USER FEES 

Question. The President's budget has requested the authority for the FAA to 
collect $150 million in user fees to offset operations and expenses of the FAA in 1997. 
For what services and support would the FAA now charge user fees? Are these 
services currently free of charge or at a nominal cost? 

Answer The FAA's proposal is to raise $150 million in direct user fees The 
FAA has proposed three alternatives including an international overflight fee, an 
airspace obstruction evaluation fee, and a security fee. The FAA has never charged 
users for these services. 

Question. Would these fees be charged for routine safety inspections and 
other safety initiatives? Can the FAA balance the need to fully offset costs for 
services along with the need to provide ever-increasing safety inspections of aircraft, 
aviation personnel, and aircraft maintenance? 

Answer. The FAA is currently proposing a limited set of cost-based fees to 
collect $150 million. No fees are currently being considered for routine safety 
inspections or other safety initiatives. The FAA has proposed three fees including an 
international overflight fee, an airspace obstruction evaluation fee, and a security fee. 

For the longer term, FAA is studying the concept of becoming self-financed 
through a comprehensive set of user fees. No fees will be proposed under this 
concept that might adversely impact safety. Rather, by ensuring adequate revenues, 
user fees would provide the resources to meet the safety demands of the travelling 
public 



356 



FULLY FUNDING THE FAA WITH USER FEES 

Question. The legislative language accompanying the FAA's 1997 budget 
request states the request is "the first step in fully funding the FAA with user fees." 
Given the fact that the FAA is moving towards user fees, has the FAA developed a 
model for charging the aviation community for use of the nation's air traffic control 
system? If not, what is the timetable for the FAA to develop such a model? 

Answer. FAA is studying the concept of becoming self financed through a 
comprehensive set of user fees. A key component of this effort is a new 
comprehensive cost allocation study. This study, together with related work now in 
progress, will define specific FAA products including various components of air traffic 
control service, and the costs associated with producing each. This information can 
be used to develop a comprehensive set of user fees to recover the cost of the air 
traffic control system The cost allocation study will be completed summer of fiscal 
year 1996 

Question Within the FAA's concept of moving to user fees, does the 
Administration still plan for aviation excise taxes to be collected and credited to the 
Airport and Airway Trust fund? 

Answer. In the near term, the FAA advocates the reinstatement of the now 
lapsed aviation excise taxes until a more general set of fees can be developed and 
proposed. If a comprehensive schedule of fees is proposed and approved, the 
McCain-Ford bill advocates the elimnination of the trust fiand taxes. 

Question. If so, what activities and what amounts will still be fijnded from the 
trust fijnd? If the trust fund is to be disbanded, how would Trust fund activities, such 
as the Airport Improvement Program, be fijnded under the new user fee system? 

Answer The FAA is studying self-finance concepts relying on user fees. It 
has not completed its assessment In addition to its internal review of financing issues 
and concepts, the Administration, in its FAA reauthorization proposal, has 
recommended the formation of a special panel composed of outside experts from the 
aviation and finance industries to study airport development requirements and 
methods of finance This panel would provide recommendations on continuing the 
aviation trust fijnd for purposes of airport development grants. S-1239, the McCain- 
Ford bill does provide for the possibility of user fees being collected to fund airport 
development. 

PROJECTED BALANCE IN AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND 
AT THE END OF 1996 

Question. With the expiration of the four excise taxes used to fund the 
Airport and Airway Trust fund (primarily the 10 percent excise tax on domestic airline 
travel), the Budget and Appropriations Committees have been concerned about the 
balance of the trust fund at the end of the current fiscal year. The FAA has stated in 
the past that the trust fund will be depleted this coming August. 

Does the FAA still believe the trust fund will be depleted this coming August? 
If not, what will be the uncommitted balance of the trust fijnd be this coming 
September 30? 



357 



Answer. No, the FAA does not believe that the trust fund will be depleted this 
coming August. The current projections reveal an uncommitted balance of $2.7 
billion on September 30, 1996 This should be sufficient to sustain FAA obligations 
from the fund until January, 1997. 

Question. The Administration's budget projects aviation excise taxes will be 
reinstated this coming August How did the FAA choose this date of enactment? 

Answer. The date was jointly determined by Treasury, 0MB, and DOT based 
on the legislative calendar. 

PRESIDENT'S REDUCTIONS TO THE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

Question. The President's 1997 budget request proposes funding the AIP at 
$1.35 billion, a reduction of $100 million from its current funding of $1 45 billion 
The President's proposed outyear funding for AIP shows the program falling to $1.0 
billion in 2000. Given this reduction to AIP, has the FAA proposed or developed 
innovative financing mechanisms that could help alleviate this reduction in funding? 

Answer The FAA recently submitted a report to Congress analyzing 
innovative financing concepts as supplements to the AIP. The report examined four 
concepts of innovative airport financing including: (1) use AIP grants to fund debt 
repayment reserves of airport revenue bond issues, (2) authorize federal guarantee of 
airport loans, analysis assuming retention of tax exempt status, (3) establish AIP eligibility 
for commercial bond insurance; and (4) institute an airport loan fund. 

Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study of innovative 
approaches for using federal funds to finance airport development as a means of 
supplementing financing available under the AIP. Accordingly, given the direction 
outlined above and the effectiveness of current federal policies and program levels, the 
impact of these innovative financing mechanisms was viewed fi-om three perspectives: (1) 
general system-wide impacts ~ the analysis concludes that low-to-modest potential gains 
are possible for airport development, (2) specific, targeted development ~ the analysis 
indicates a potentially pivotal role for innovative financing mechanisms; and (3) 
development under a fiscally constrained federal program - the analysis indicates both a 
significant system-wide impact and targeted role. 

All concepts were determined to have a quantifiable impact on the amount of 
capital available for airport development. But as noted above, the extent of that impact 
varied considerably, given different assumptions. Under historic AIP funding levels of 
recent years, the impacts were determined to be small, particularly in relationship to costs 
associated with establishing a new federal program. Of the options studied, the AIP 
eligibility for commercial bond insurance concept offered the greatest impact for the least 
implementation difficulty. 

Based on the findings in this study and in light of reduced levels of AIP, the 
Department of Transportation proposed, as a part of its legislative initiative for FAA 
reauthorization, to convene a panel of airport financing experts to further analyze 
innovative financing concepts and provide a proposal to DOT and Congress on potential 
program implementation. 

Question. Does the Administration support changes to the current PFC? 
Would the FAA support legislative language clarifying that PFC revenues be allowed 
to support debt financing? 



358 



Answer. The FAA does not support a legislatively mandated revision of the 
PFC program at this time. However, the FAA, through its recently published 
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, is taking steps to improve its oversight 
and administration of the PFC program by clarifying certain air carrier collection and 
remittance issues. The FAA believes that this action, combined with its development 
of air carrier audit guidelines, and other program guidance, will improve the 
administration of the PFC program, given its relatively short existence at this point 

In addition, the FAA does not believe that legislative action relating to the use 
of PFC revenue in support of debt financing is warranted at this time. This is because 
of recent advances made by an FAA initiative to improve the creditworthiness of PFC 
stand-alone financing. The FAA has developed a protracted informal resolution 
process to correct public agency violations of the PFC statute and regulation when 
PFC-backed bonds are to be used in financing PFC projects. The City of Little Rock, 
Arkansas recently requested that the FAA include this language in its Record of 
Decision to facilitate stand-alone PFC bonds. As a result of the FAA's inclusion of 
this language, the bonds were rated by two rating agencies and insured by a bond 
insurer. The FAA is aware of other public agencies in the process of developing 
applications that intend to request the protracted informal resolution process to aid in 
PFC-backed bond issues 

Because of this progress and the increased understanding of the PFC program 
by the financial community, the FAA believes that the acceptance of PFC stand-alone 
bonds is increasingly likely on a broader scale. The FAA does not support legislation 
that would hamper its ability to prescribe corrections to violations of the PFC statute 
and regulation for the sake of improving the marketability of PFC stand-alone bonds 
through limiting or removing the FAA's ability to terminate PFC collections for cause. 



QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SPECTER 
PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS 

Question The Pittsburgh International Airport has experienced numerous 
power outages and radar interruptions since September of last year. These outages 
have caused delays, increased cost for several airlines, and heightened safety concerns 
for thousands of passengers I have written Administrator Hinson on October 12, 
1995, and March 28, 1996, addressing these concerns. I am advised that the Federal 
Aviation Administration believes it has rectified the situation by installing an 
uninterruptible power system at the Airport which should be completed this month. 
In my letter to Administrator Hinson of March 28, 1996, I requested that the agency 
provide me with a report on the cause of these outages and specific plans it has to 
remedy this situation To date, I have not received a response. What assurances can 
you give me that the actions the FAA has taken so far will adequately protect the 
Pittsburgh International Airport from additional outages in the fijture. 

Answer The agency appreciates your continued interest in the quality of air 
traffic services at the Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), and the Administrator 
has provided you a response dated May 8, 1996, to your March 28, 1996, letter The 
FAA has experienced 13 outages since June 1995, on various systems at PIA Eight 
of these outages are related to commercial power interruptions and/or unstable 
operation of the standby engine/generator at the Pittsburgh Airport Surveillance Radar 
(ASR-9). We have conducted technical reviews and surveys of the radar and power 



359 



systems at the ASR-9 radar facility and have taken action to upgrade the quality of 
these systems 

Since the majority of the radar outages have been attributed to the power 
system, this is the focus of our initial technical efforts. A team of FAA headquarters 
and regional engineers and technical specialists installed specific modifications to these 
systems that were needed to improve reliability of the radar system We have replaced 
the existing standby engine/generator with a larger engine with a 175KW capacity. 
We also installed a 75KVA Uninterruptible Power System (UPS), as well as 
completed upgrades to the power system switchgear including a fully coordinated 
circuit breaker installation. This construction was completed ahead of schedule, and 
we commissioned this new power system April 25, 1996. There have been no power 
related outages on the ASR-9 since the modifications were accomplished. 

In addition, FAA is undertaking several management actions that address 
recent outages and provide some short term corrections. On March 29, 1996, we 
conducted a systems efficiency review to address our concerns regarding reliability of 
the air traffic control services that are provided. An action plan has been developed, 
requiring that periodic updates be prepared to ensure progress is tracked and focus is 
maintained on completion of the action items These initiatives include actions 
relating to improvement of internal and external communications, training, staffing, 
and technical items such as equipment performance 

FAA also appreciates the commitment of the Allegheny County Department of 
Aviation resources in support of the installation of the second commercial power feed 
to the FAA TRACON at Pittsburgh. The FAA has provided an additional $300,000 
to fund this additional commercial power source This work is also in progress Also, 
it is our intention to work closely with the Department of Aviation and keep the 
director fully informed of our progress in enhancing the services at Pittsburgh 

The FAA expects that the technical and management actions that have been 
taken at Pittsburgh should result in an enhancement in air traffic service delivery at 
this critical transportation hub. 

Question I am concerned about the economic losses that can arise out of the 
radar outages at the Pittsburgh Airport. For example, USAir estimates that it lost 
$2.5 million due to the previous two radar outages there. Although the FAA intends 
to complete installation of an uninterruptible power system to prevent these outages, 
do you believe it would also be prudent to install a standby backup radar at the 
airport? 

Answer. The FAA does not routinely provide standby radar systems at 
airports The ASR-9 radar system is designed for high reliability, including two 
channels of radar transmitting and receiving equipment, effectively, two radars within 
one radar facility. Additionally, in the case of a complete loss of terminal radar 
services at an airport, the national airspace infrastructure's long-range radars sensors 
can be quickly configured to provide terminal radar service to an effected airport, with 
an arrangement known as CENRAP. The long-range 200 mile radar sensor located 
closest to the airport will provide radar service until the terminal airport radar is 
restored. This arrangement has worked well in the past, and the FAA plans to 
continue to utilize this system for back-up 

You can be assured that the agency will be closely monitoring the performance 
of these recent upgrades, and we remain ready and willing to take additional technical 
measures as warranted to address any identified areas of sub-performance. 



LETTERS OF INTENT 

Question, I am advised that the FAA is not issuing any new LOIs for airport 
construction projects. Is this an accurate statement of your agency's current policy, 
and if it is accurate, is this a permanent policy position? In the absence of FAA LOIs, 
how will airports and communities like Philadelphia, which have made major 
commitments to a system-wide capacity project such as a new runway, effectively 
fund such a major capital undertaking? 

Answer. The FAA's policy to suspend the issuances of new LOIs was made in 
1994 and is not considered to be permanent. The policy is evaluated each year, and 
requests for new LOIs are considered on a case-by-case basis. 

The continual decrease in AIP funding does present a special challenge to 
airports to implement plans for system wide capacity enhancement projects. 
Philadelphia's project is important to the airport system, and every consideration is 
being given to providing appropriate AIP funds without resorting to LOIs In 1994 
and 1995, the FAA was able to provide grants totaling $29 million toward this 
project. We expect to issue another grant in 1996. The airport has requested 
approximately $120 million in AIP funds for this estimated $215 million project. This 
is much more than the 30 percent support provided by AIP for major capacity projects 
at large airports. Given this time of downsizing of the federal investment, the larger 
airports have looked to other funding sources outside the AIP, such as PFC, bonds, 
and airport rates and charges 

Question. Given that the Senate Committee Report and the Conference 
Report for Fiscal Year 1996 Transportation Appropriations Act contained language 
urging favorable consideration of Philadelphia International Airport's application for a 
LOI, how do you explain your agency's failure, seven months into the fiscal year, to 
provide at the very least a discretionary grant for continued progress on that airport's 
construction project? As you are aware, the additional runway is much-needed due to 
existing air traffic congestion and the growth experienced by the airport in recent 
years 

Answer. FAA has been aware and supportive of this new runway project at 
Philadelphia International Airport as indicated by prior grants totaling $29 million. 
We have been able to keep up with the needs of this project with timely grants in lieu 
of an LOI We understand that the airport is still involved in land acquisition for 
which the prior grants were issued. We plan to issue a grant in fiscal year 1996 af^er 
the airport has received construction bids and has documented the funding 
requirements The issuance of a grant at this time would be premature, as the amount 
of the grant could be inappropriate based on the bids received. This is standard 
practice in order that AIP funds may be allocated as accurately as possible to the many 
needs of the airports which are experiencing growth similar to Philadelphia. 



QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOND 
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS) CONTRACT 

Question. The FAA has indicated that it never established a working business 
relationship with the contractor. What actions did the FAA support to stimulate a 
cooperative working relationship? 



361 



Answer The FAA WAAS Team provided a project manager as a direct point 
of contact and individual team leads to communicate with the Wilcox WAAS program 
manager, and individual Team leads at the working level on a daily basis The FAA 
WAAS project manager and all FAA WAAS team leads participated in all meetings 
and working groups with qualified technical personnel, and provided approximately 
900 days of on-site support (at an estimated value of approximately $1 million) to the 
Wilcox WAAS Team Additionally, the FAA WAAS Team initiated and implemented 
the concept of video teleconferencing, and provided Wilcox with a video conferencing 
capability at their Kansas City, MO facility. 

Question. At what point, please provide a specific date, was it decided you 
were going to terminate this contract'' 

Answer. The contracting officer made a decision to terminate the Wilcox 
WAAS contract on April 17, 1996. 

Question At what point, please provide a specific date, did the first 
discussions take place with Hughes about the possibility of that company assuming the 
prime contractor role for this program? With whom and where'' Did the FAA have 
an informal agreement with Hughes to accept a sole source contract if Wilcox was 
terminated'' 

Answer Discussions first took place telephonically, with Hughes on Friday, 
April 26, 1996, at 4 p m.. Eastern Standard Time (EST) with John Britigan the 
Hughes program manager, to inform him that the Wilcox Team WAAS Contract had 
been terminated on that date and the FAA would like to discuss further actions with 
Hughes the following Monday, April 29, 1996. Mr. Fred Mace, TRW, was also 
contacted telephonically on Friday, April 26, at 4:30 p m. EST, and he was informed 
that the Wilcox WAAS Contract had been terminated on that date. On April 29, 
1996, the FAA met with the Hughes WAAS Team to discuss a contract for continuing 
the development and fielding of the WAAS 

The FAA never had any agreement informal, or otherwise, with Hughes to 
accept a sole source contract if Wilcox was terminated. 

Question. If you believe your cost and schedule overrun data of $100 million 
and 10 months is accurate, what portion of the problem might be attributable to 
Hughes'' 

Answer. Because the costs are merged into a single reporting system before 
forwarding them to the FAA in the Wilcox monthly cost/schedule report, it would be 
difficult to determine exactly how much would specifically be attributed to Hughes or 
TRW. Once the data is input into the management information tool and the cost 
performance analyzer, it is impossible to identiiy by company what percentage, dollar, 
or schedule is allocated. 

Question. I understand that the original satellite program manager (who has 
since lef^ the FAA) expressed strong concerns to Dr Donohue and, perhaps others, 
about some of the difficulties that the FAA itself was causing the program and the 
contractor What insight can you provide about those expressed concerns'' Please 
provide a copy of any correspondence provided to Dr. Donohue or his staff 
expressing any such observations or concerns. 

Answer. Neither Dr. Donohue or his immediate staff has received 
correspondence expressing any such observation or concerns Moreover, Dr. 



Donohue specifically asked Mr. Dorfler (at Mr. Dorfler's exit interview) if there were 
any special concerns or issues he wanted to bring to his attention, and Mr. Dorfler 
said no. 

Question. When you awarded the WAAS contract, you, and the Secretary, 
said that with this project the United States would become the world leader in satellite 
technology, and it would help create thousands of new American jobs and a $30 
billion industry in a decade. I understand the Japanese and Europeans are hard at 
work on their own version of WAAS It is my assessment that the action you just 
took will unquestionably delay this program. Isn't it possible that US. leadership in 
the technology will be compromised or lost as a result*^ 

Answer The action just taken will neither compromise the US leadership in 
satellite technology, nor will it result in the loss of the US leadership in satellite 
technology. In fact, it was part of the considerations when selecting an alternative 
course of action. The US. and the FAA remain the leaders in this technology with 
Japan, Australia, Canada, China, and Europe closely monitoring our approach. They 
are expected to follow in our footsteps. 

DEBT EXTENSION BILL 

Question The recently enacted Debt Extension Bill included the Small 
Business Committee's Regulatory Reform bill This legislation provides for 
congressional review of federal agency rulemakings Are you familiar with the new 
Congressional Review statute'' 

Answer The FAA is fully conversant with these new requirements The 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation has organized a Department-wide process 
for ensuring that copies of all final rules are sent to Congress prior to publication in 
the Federal Register 

Question. Do you expect the FAA to issue any "major " final rules before 
year-end that would be subject to this Congressional Review statute'' 

(a) If yes. What rules have you identified, and what is your best estimate 
when these final rules will be issued'' 

(b) If no, or if the Administrator is uncertain whether relevant rules will be 
issued. I ask that you discuss potential major rulings with your FAA colleagues, and 
then provide a written estimate of the dates on which these final rules will be issued. 

Answer. The FAA expects to issue only one rule before year-end that 0MB 
may consider "major" and that would be subject to this congressional review statute 
This project, entitled "Flight Data Recorders," would require additional recorded 
parameters on flight data recorders, following a recommendation of the National 
Transportation Safety Board. If adopted, these amendments would allow for more 
comprehensive accident and incident information to be gathered, thereby potentially 
reducing fijture accidents and incidents. 

SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY REFORM BILL 

Question The Small Business Regulatory Reform bill also amends the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, impacting rules promulgated after June 26, 1996 Under 
this amendment, a regulatory flexibility analysis is required for every proposed and 



363 



final rule unless the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of "small entities." Has the FAA outlined specific 
procedures to ensure compliance with the regulatory flexibility provisions? 

Answer The FAA does have specific procedures to ensure compliance with 
the regulatory flexibility provisions. The FAA's criteria for determining when an 
economic impact is significant and when the number of small entities is substantial 
have been approved by the Small Business Administration. 

Question Are any of the agency's upcoming rulings likely to have a significant 
economic impact? If so, do you intend to complete an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis? 

Answer. If adopted, the FAA's anticipated final rule on "Airspace 
Management Over Grand Canyon National Park" is likely to have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA does intend to complete a 
regulatory flexibility analysis for this proposed rule. 

PROPOSED USER FEES 

Question. What incentives would be built into a system of certification fees to 
encourage FAA efficiency and innovation? 

Answer. Any fees that might be proposed could contain several mechanisms 
to ensure efficiency and innovation. In addition to any fees being cost based, such 
mechanisms might include statutory limits on fee increases, a rate commission, or 
inclusion of aviation industry representatives in an oversight role in making certain 
FAA spending decisions. Moreover, any fees would be established through the 
rulemaking process which allows for extensive public comment, including 
recommendations for efficiency and innovation.. 

Question What recourse would a company have if it felt FAA certification 
charges were unreasonably high? 

Answer. Once established, FAA will expect service recipients to pay the 
established charges and fees. However, it is our anticipation that all fees established 
will be cost based. They will be implemented through formal rulemaking, as 
prescribed in the Administrative Procedures Act. This process will permit significant, 
structured public participation in establishing the structure and level of fees It may 
also be possible to include mechanisms to insure efficiency in the assessment of fees, 
including statutory limits on fee increases, a rate commission, or inclusion of aviation 
industry representatives in an oversight role. Moreover, we fully expect that the levels 
and structure of fees will be subject to revision as we and the industry gain experience 
with this form of financing. 

Question. The Challenge 2000 report recommends that delegation be 
expanded to the program level. Would FAA certification fees be based on a 
certification system that has delegation at the program level? 

Answer. FAA is currently studying comprehensive user fees as a method of 
financing. No decisions have been made either with respect to certification system fee 
structures or potential fee levels. 



364 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GORTON 
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

Question. Administrator Hinson, in my opening remarks, I noted my concern 
regarding the low level of funding for the AIP in the President's fiscal year 1997 
budget. At the same time, at both AIP reauthorization and Transportation 
Appropriations hearings held by the House earlier this year, you acknowledged that 
one of the biggest challenges facing the agency is meeting anticipated passenger 
growth. I think everyone would agree that this anticipated growth will place 
enormous demands upon our air traffic control services and airport capacity. 
Specifically regarding airport capital development needs, why does the Administration 
only propose $1.35 billion for the AIP when airports require at least $10 billion each 
year through the year 2002 for necessary capital development projects? 

Answer. The Administration believes that the issue of financing airport capital 
development is critical in the face of expected growth in passenger enplanements. We 
must also be cognizant of budget limitations and the ability of the federal government 
to continue historical levels of assistance. At the proposed AIP level, we believe that 
all safety and security needs of the airport system will be addressed, and that most of 
the critical infrastructure preservation will be completed. Increasingly difficult choices 
will have to be made on which capacity enhancement projects can receive AIP 
funding. 

That is why the Administration has proposed that a select panel of airport, 
airline and financing experts be convened to study and report, within 120 days, on 
their recommendations for long-term federal involvement for airport development. 
We would expect that this panel would look at a broad variety of federal assistance 
concepts, as well as market based concepts and other sources of developing airport 
capital, such as the passenger facility program. 



QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG 
FINANCE REFORM -- USER FEES 

Question. Your formal opening statement does not provide much detail as to 
the specific user fees you are proposing for the purpose of covering $150 million of 
your costs in fiscal year 1997. What details can you give us as to the specific user 
fees you will be proposing, and the amount of revenue each one will generate? 

Answer. The FAA has proposed to raise $150 million in direct user fees. The 
fees under consideration include $25 to $35 million in overflight fees, $10 to $13 
million in obstruction notification fees, and $88 to $1 10 million in security fees. 

Question. Does your estimated $1 50 million in user fee revenue reflect the fiall 
cost to the agency of providing the services for which you would be collecting fees? 
Will you wait to collect the full cost of these services in future years? 

Answer. FAA believes that users should pay the full cost of producing the 
services provided to them. This includes not only the incremental cost of providing 
each particular service but also an appropriate amount of capital and overhead costs. 
However, the agency may opt to collect only the operating costs of services in fiscal 
year 1997. There is no profit or fee in the proposed charges. 



365 



Question. You have voiced support for the FAA reform bill as reported by the 
Senate Commerce Committee. That bill calls for most, if not all, of your agency's 
multi-billion dollar costs to be covered by new user fees. Assuming the legislative 
authority was enacted, how quickly could you realistically determine your fully 
allocated costs and put a defendable fee schedule in place? 

Answer. FAA is currently conducting a comprehensive cost allocation study 
which will be completed by mid-summer. This study, together with follow-on work, 
will provide the foundation for establishing a comprehensive fee schedule to recover 
FAA's costs Such a fee schedule could be put in place by the beginning of fiscal year 
1997 

Question What have you learned from your current efforts to finalize your 
$ 1 50 million user fee proposal about the ease or difTiculty you would have in assessing 
user fees for all your costs? 

Answer. FAA has in progress a comprehensive cost allocation study which 
will determine the costs of producing specific FAA products and services. Upon 
completion, expected this summer, this study could provide a basis for proposing a 
general set of user fees to recover FAA's costs. 

FINANCE REFORM -- OVERFLIGHT FEES 

Question One of the fees under consideration within your agency is an 
overflight fee through which the FAA will charge foreign carriers for the use of air 
traffic control services even if they do not land on U.S. soil. What is the current 
status of overflight fees in other countries and how do these countries set their 
overflight fees? 

Answer. Most countries assess air traffic control charges for aircraft which fly 
through airspace for which they provide air traffic control services. In general, the 
fees charged for any particular overflight reflect some combination of the following. 

- distance flown 

- aircraft weight 

- fixed fees for flights on specified routes 

Question. Do all other major industrialized nations charge overflight fees? 

Answer. ATC user fees have been used in Europe for many years. England's 
Civil Aviation Authority is often cited as a prime example of an organization 
effectively financed by user fees. Canada also charges for overflights. 

The following is a partial list of countries that charge user fees for overflights: 



Algeria 


Austria 


India 


Belgium 


Belize 


Finland 


Benin 


Burkina Faso 


Norway 


Cameroon 


Central African Republic 


Sweden 


Chad 


Congo 


Venezuela 


Costa Rica 


Croatia 


Viet Nam 


Cyprus 


Czech Republic 


Colombia 


Denmark 


Dutch Antilles 


China 


El Salvador 


France 


Chile 


Gabon 


Germany 


Brazil 


Greece 


Guatemala 


Cuba 


Honduras 


Hungary 


Jamaica 



Ireland 


Italy 


Ivory Coast 


Luxembourg 


Madagascar 


Mali 


Malta 


Mauritania 


Morocco 


The Netherlands 


Nicaragua 


Niger 


Nigeria 


Poland 


Portugal 


Senegal 


Slovak Republic 


Slovenia 


United Kingdom 


Yugoslavia 



366 



Jordan 

Zimbabwe 

Indonesia 

Zaire 

Zambia 

Togo 

Turkey 

Spain 

Switzerland 

Japan does not charge overflight fees, but will charge ATC fees to incoming flights. 

Question. Are we likely to trigger retaliation by any other nations by 
establishing a new overflight fee? 

Answer Almost all nations routinely impose air traffic control fees for all 
flights including international overflights. Accordingly, it is unlikely they would take 
any action against the U.S. for instituting fees that are the accepted norm in most of 
the world. One possible exception is Canada, which currently does not charge U.S. 
carriers for air traffic control services on certain, but not all, routes when they overfly. 
Imposing charges on Canadian aircraft overflying the U.S. could result in Canada 
imposing similar charges on U.S. carriers to recover Canada's costs of providing air 
traffic control service. However, at this time, we do not anticipate charging Canadian 
carriers. 

FINANCE REFORM -- NO INCENTIVES TO BE EFFICIENT 

Question. One of the criticisms of going to a user-fee-based system for 
financing the FAA is that it takes away all incentive for the agency to be cost- 
effective. There is no question that, given the recent constraints on your Operations 
budget, the FAA has been required to execute its critical missions more efficiently. 
The personnel reform provisions that we included in last year's appropriations bill 
helped in this process. How do you respond to the assertion that your agency will not 
have any incentive to be more efficient if all your costs are financed through user fees? 

Answer. Many analysts including CBO believe that user fees can help 
promote efficiency and productivity. In addition, S-1239, the McCain-Ford bill 
provides for an audit of FAA's financial requirements to make certain that these are 
truly justified. 

Question. What incentives would exist for you to keep costs under control? 

Answer. Under a user fee financing system, FAA would remain subject to the 
same cost control constraints under which we now operate. Congress would continue 
to appropriate our spending authority, and we would continue to interact with 
industry groups to ensure that we provide the products and services they desire in an 
efficient manner. Moreover, additional mechanisms, such as statutory limits on fee 
increases, a rate commission, and inclusion of aviation industry representatives in an 
oversight role might be established. 



367 



FINANCE REFORM -- EXPIRATION OF TICKET TAX 

Question. As we all know, the ticket tax expired this past December. It is 
estimated that by the end of this year, there will be roughly $600 million in the 
aviation trust flind ~ less than one tenth of the amount that you have requested out of 
the trust fund for fiscal year 1997. What is your estimate as to the deadline by which 
we must restore the ticket tax in order to generate the necessary $6. 1 billion to finance 
your budget request? 

Answer. The deadline by which the ticket tax needs to be restored in order to 
generate the necessary funds to finance the budget request is the end of January 1997. 

Question. According to OMB, part of the revenue that would result from the 
restoration of the ticket tax will be necessary if the President's budget is to yield a 
deficit of zero by the year 2002. Separately, however, you have endorse^d the notion 
of terminating the ticket tax within the next couple of years in favor of user fee 
financing for your agency. Is the Administration in a position to fiilly embrace the 
termination of the ticket tax before 2002, even if it exacerbates the challenge of 
getting to a balanced budget by the year 2002? 

Answer. FAA advocates temporary reinstatement of the now lapsed excise 
taxes until a comprehensive set of user fees can be designed, proposed, and adopted. 
If proposed and adopted, we anticipate that these fees would, for the most part, 
replace the excise taxes. Because these fees would fully recover FAA's costs of 
providing services, no adverse impact on the budget would result from elimination of 
the taxes. 

FINANCE REFORM -- DOUBLE TAXATION 

Question. Your budget request assumes that roughly 55 percent of your 
Operations budget would come from ticket tax revenue through trust fund 
appropriations and 45 percent would be come from General fund appropriations. 
Currently, there is absolutely no distinction in the law as to precisely which FAA 
activities may be covered by Trust funds versus General funds. For next year, you are 
requesting $150 million in new user fees to cover costs that are currently covered by 
appropriated funds. If the ticket tax is restored and you are simultaneously allowed to 
collect user fees, how can you assure the aviation community that they are not being 
subjected to "double taxation"? 

Answer. The intent of FAA is to move to a system of user fees under which 
users of the aviation system pay for the services they receive, not more, not less. 
Once in place, the ticket tax would not need to be continued. 

Question. Are you committed to ensuring that, if the ticket tax is restored and 
new user fees are assessed, the total of funding collected through user fees will never 
exceed the General fund contribution to your budget? 

Answer. FAA believes that users should pay the full cost of the services 
provided to them. This includes not only the incremental cost of providing each 
particular service but also an appropriate amount of capital and overhead costs. 
Because FAA believes users should pay the full cost for services they receive, and not 
the general taxpayer, we would hope that user fees would in fact, always exceed the 
General fund contributions to the FAA budget. The General fund contribution would 



continue, but at a reduced level, designed to cover the cost of services provided public 
users. 

WHAT CHANGES ARE NEEDED BEYOND PROCUREMENT REFORM 

Question. The fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill granted you the authority to 
implement procurement reform. As part of this initiative, we directed you to develop 
a new system that "at a minimum, provides for more timely and cost effective 
acquisitions ...". You have stated that procurement reform by itself will not improve 
either timeliness or cost effectiveness - that other efforts in the agency had to change 
to achieve these goals. What specific problems outside of the procurement process 
have you identified that keeps you from acquiring and deploying new systems in a 
more timely and cost effective manner? 

Answer. While the FAA is reforming its acquisition and procurement 
processes so it can deliver quality products and services in a more timely and cost 
effective manner, these reforms cannot achieve their full potential benefits without 
budgetary reform. Unstable funding wrecks havoc on acquisition programs. It 
invalidates carefully crafted cost schedule, and technical baselines, and greatly 
increases the overall time and cost to deliver new products. Budgetary reform is 
needed so acquisition programs can count on being funded according to the cost and 
schedule baselines upon which they were structured and approved. Budgetary reform 
is also necessary because fijnding will be needed quickly for new programs since they 
will be initiated at the investment decision in the reformed process rather than at the 
mission need decision. Finally, so that technology may be inserted into the National 
Airspace System as occasions arise, a flexible "technology insertion" budget line needs 
to be established. 

Question With the other changes you have now made, can we expect you to 
acquire systems at less cost? 

Answer. The FAA reformed acquisition system has a minimum goal of 20 
percent reduction from the baseline cost to acquire and field new capabilities and to 
achieve this goal within three years Metrics and tracking will be used to verify how 
well this goal is met. Greater stretch goals will be set as the initial target is achieved 
A complete independent assessment of all acquisition reform initiatives, including the 
cost reduction goal, will be made in 1999. 

Question. Prior to your arrival at the FAA, one of our great frustrations with 
the failure of the AAS program was the lack of accountability within the agency. 
After billions of dollars were lost and several critical years were wasted, no one lost 
their job - no one took responsibility. How have you addressed the problem of 
accountability in the procurement process? 

Answer. The Integrated Product Development System (IPDS) is the 
implementing arm of FAA's acquisition reform. Building on IPDS, which was 
initiated in 1995, a small group of product teams will receive delegations of new 
acquisition decision authority. To assure the success of these first teams, they will be 
provided workshops, consultation, and organizational support to resolve any start-up 
problems. These teams will lead the way in understanding how to be accountable and 
to exercise their decision making wisely. They will be encouraged to collaborate in 
finding innovative approaches to replace the rigid prescriptions of past practices In 



369 



return, they will develop new terms of accountability for decisions they make. Their 
experience will provide guiding information for the remaining product teams, which 
will gradually receive delegations of new acquisition decision authority as they 
demonstrate readiness for empowerment. To balance the responsibilities of 
accountability, the FAA is developing a gainsharing program as an incentive for 
product teams to exceed program goals and baselines. 

The FAA also recognizes that all accountability should not rest with the 
product teams Decisions and accountability related to resource investment and 
allocation will reside with the agency's top-management A number of management 
checks and balances-type processes are in place to provide direction and guidance to 
the product teams when appropriate. Potential breaches or changes to baselines must 
be approved by management. Acquisition program reviews are required to keep 
managers informed on a regular basis of program status, including issues and 
assessment of risk. 

PROCUREMENT REFORM - RAPID ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY 

Question One of the principle goals of your procurement reform efforts is to 
reduce the acquisition cycle by at least one third, and cut the average life cycle of new 
equipment to ten years. One thing I know from my experience in the computer 
industry is that technology advances very quickly. Even with faster turnaround of 
procurements, how do you expect to keep up with the rapid improvements in 
technology? 

Answer. FAA is taking several steps to keep up with rapid improvements in 
technology First, the agency is establishing a mission analysis capability that will, as 
part of its responsibility for evaluating on a continuing basis the agency's ability to 
satisfy current and fijture demand for services, seek out and evaluate technological 
opportunities for performing mission responsibilities more efficiently and at lower 
cost. Second, the agency is establishing an investment analysis capability that will 
establish and maintain over time a corporate database of domestic and international 
technological capabilities and trends. Third, Integrated Product Teams are 
responsible for remaining abreast of technological innovation and opportunity within 
their areas of responsibility (for example, automation, surveillance, communications). 
Finally, and equally important, the FAA no longer intends to develop and deploy 
complex systems that must be replaced in total as they become obsolete, 
unsupportable, or unable to satisfy mission need. Instead, the agency intends to 
deploy systems with open architectures, standard interfaces and protocols, and 
modular capability that can be expanded or upgraded over time (Pre-Planned Product 
Improvement) without wholesale replacement or entire complex systems Source 
selection criteria will reward corporations that propose solutions with these "open" 
design characteristics and will discourage those that propose closed systems that 
cannot be easily upgraded. The agency also intends to maximize application of 
commercial and nondevelopmental products (COTS/NDI) that can be replaced or 
upgraded as the need arises. 

PROCUREMENT REFORM -- CANCELLATION OF WAAS CONTRACT 

Question FAA has several acquisitions in the pipeline. You just announced 
the cancellation of the WAAS contract with Wilcox, and you have initiated new 
negotiations with Hughes under your new procurement rules to take over that 



370 



procurement. Do you anticipate reviewing all your other outgoing procurements and 
transitioning them to the new system if the contracts are not performing satisfactorily? 

Answer. The FAA contracts and technical offices have monitored, and will 
continue to monitor, ongoing contracts to assure satisfactory contract performance. 
If a contract is not being performed satisfactorily, and this situation cannot be 
remedied with the extant contractor, the FAA can terminate for default or 
convenience, depending on the particular contract situation. Once termination occurs, 
a new procurement can be conducted under the new system to acquire the still needed 
equipment or services. 

Unsatisfactory contract performance, be it technical, cost, schedule or 
managerial, is a situation the FAA takes very seriously. The FAA works aggressively 
to ensure contractor performance. However, when satisfactory contract performance 
cannot be achieved, the FAA can take termination action. Any new procurement and 
resulting contract then vnW be under the new system. 

Question. Some critics have asserted that you terminated the Wilcox contract 
so that you could proceed with Hughes under more convenient procurement rules. 

Answer. Consideration of the new acquisition system did not play a part in the 
termination of the Wilcox contract. The WAAS Contract was terminated for 
convenience by the FAA in the best interest of the Government. 

Selecting Hughes as the WAAS contractor was considered the best course of 
action to take. The Integrated Product Team considered cost, schedule, and technical 
risk which also included an analysis of their past performance in critical software 
programs, company assets available to expeditiously continue the program, and 
availability of highly skilled resources necessary for program execution. 

Question. How do you respond to that assertion? 

Answer. The cure notice issued by the FAA on March 18, 1996, identified 
contractual deficiencies in the following areas: Baseline Management, Cost and 
Schedule Reporting, Invoice Management, Subcontracts, Program Management, 
System Design Review, Systems Engineering, Hardware Selection/Approval Process, 
Identification of Ground Earth Stations, and Software, as conditions that were 
endangering the performance of the WAAS contract. These deficiencies delineated 
where Wilcox failed to make progress and also failed to meet other contractual 
provisions. 

PROCUREMENT REFORM -- SPEEDY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT AND 
EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES 

Question. There is no question that, in the wake of the failure of the AAS 
system, we cannot work fast enough to replace the existing hardware ~ especially the 
IBM computers currently supporting the system. How will the procurement reform 
provisions granted to you in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill serve to expedite 
the procurement and delivery of new equipment specifically to address the problem of 
"outages." 

Answer. It is expected that the procurement reform provisions granted in the 
fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill will serve to expedite the procurement and delivery 
of new equipment by allowing key decisions to be made in a timely manner, at the 
lowest possible level. In the FAA's case, this would be within the IPT. Prior to 



371 



reform, the FAA would have had to publicly announce any new requirement to the 
general public, formally solicit proposals from offerors and make a competitive award 
in accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act. The Act and the Federal 
Acquisition Regulations do provide for sole source acquisitions but require a formal 
determination that specific criteria exists allowing for that single source procurement. 
Prior to reform, these processes required graduated levels of review tied to the 
category and value of the acquisition. Acquisition reform provides relief from both 
the Act and the FAR, allowing for a more immediate response to emergent urgent 
requirements. Decisions leading to the selection of sources for equipment to replace 
that experiencing outages are expedited and communications with potential vendors 
are facilitated. Inefficient and time-consuming reviews are eliminated. It is expected 
that the time it will take to contract for an urgent requirement will be decreased by six 
to twelve months. 

Question. In many instances, the power supply serving air traffic control 
facilities are not under the control of the FAA. A recent incident, during which 
runway lights were disable at Kennedy Airport, stemmed from power supply problems 
that were the responsibility of the Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey. 
What steps have you taken to ensure the reliability of systems outside the direct 
control of the FAA? 

Answer. FAA policy requires that visual aids associated with facilities in the 
National Airspace System and the national system of airports have a definite 
configuration for electrical power. Electrical power details acceptable for non-agency 
owned lighting aids and agency owned facilities associated with these systems are 
given in Advisory Circular 1 50/53450- 17B and Order 6030.20. The Department of 
Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration is proposing a bill 
entitled, "Underground Damage Prevention Act of 1995." The bill tasks the Secretary 
of Transportation with establishing a nationwide toll-free telephone number system at 
the State level. The system will provide a one-call notification system requiring 
excavators to notify in advance of any activity which could result in interruption of 
utility service and requiring facility operators to locate and or otherwise identify their 
facilities at an excavation site. 

ATC OUTAGES - POWER AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES 

Question. The recent incidents of air traffic control outages have highlighted 
the risks associated with the delays in replacing the aged hardware that is the 
backbone of our air traffic control system. It appears that several of the "outages" 
over the last year were not solely the fault of the hardware. Your own evaluation of 
these incidents has revealed a wide variety of causes including software problems, 
operator errors, communication problems, power supply problems, etc. Please give 
us an update on your overall efforts to address these other aspects of the ATC 
"outage" problem. 

Answer. The FAA continually strives to improve its operations and 
maintenance of air traffic control system assets. One of the initiatives put into place to 
improve overall operations in dealing with these type of interruptions is the NAS 
Operations Program's National Maintenance Coordination Center (NMCC), a key 
component of the national Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC) 
located in Hemdon, Virginia. The NMCC was established at the ATCSCC to be the 



372 



focal point for national coordination of all operations and maintenance restoration 
activities associated with the air traffic control system. 

The primary software problem the agency is experiencing is associated with 
the local site adaptation of the software. A class has been established to train 
personnel involved in this local adaptation process. The class is scheduled for June 
1 996 at the FAA Training Center. In addition, efforts are underway to standardize the 
development of FAA software by introducing industrial standards into the production 
cycle. 

We have taken aggressive steps to eliminate and/or mitigate the impact of 
personnel errors on our air traffic systems. When significant outages occur, senior 
executive personnel are notified of the event within five minutes so as to actively 
engage themselves in the resolution of the problem. The NMCC also hosts daily 
conference calls with FAA's Engineering, Logistics Management and Quality 
Assurance organizations and all regional Maintenance Control Centers to review 
current problems, identify emerging maintenance trends, and assessing impact of 
outage events. The published results of this interaction between organizations are 
formatted as "lessons learned" documents, engineering and field technician notes. 
These documents are then distributed throughout the FAA to the widest possible 
audience. 

The FAA has recently successfully implemented the Leased Interfacility NAS. 
Communications System (LINCS), to minimize the impact of communications 
failures Since the implementation of this network, telecommunications outages that 
materially affect our air traffic operations have been greatly reduced. The LfNCS 
design minimizes single points of failure and uses electronic switching to automatically 
bypass failed circuits on the network backbone. A network operations facility 
oversees the operation of the network 24-hours a day, where state of the art remote 
monitoring technology is used to constantly oversee the status of the network to 
detect any problems immediately. Therefore, restoral activities can be initiated 
without delay, and often before the user is even aware a problem exists. 

Mitigating the impact of commercial power supply problems and failures at 
our facilities has been one of the agency's highest priorities Work is underway to 
complete the power upgrades at all ARTCC's and selected TRACON's To date, 23 
of 27 facilities have been cutover. In addition, a number of radar and TRACON 
facilities have received or will be receiving power conditioning system equipment. 
This will enhance the reliability of the service by minimizing the effects of commercial 
power interruptions, power transients, and 'brownout' situations. The FAA has 
utilized various teams of individuals to make assessments at facilities to give us an in- 
depth view of the conditions of our power distribution systems. These teams have 
identified some shortcomings and efforts are underway to address those currently 
within our fiscal reach, and planning is being done to address those outside our fiscal 
reach. Additionally, the findings of these teams have been shared with our 
management and technical personnel to improve and coordinate our response to the 
issues. 

Airway Facilities has established a Power Systems Division, which is tasked to 
address the design and implementation of power systems at NAS facilities throughout 
the organization. Regions have stepped up their efforts to get technicians trained on 
power systems and hire personnel to fill vacancies in key technical positions, and have 
improved coordination with the utility companies in order to minimize service 
interruptions. 



373 



ATC OUTAGES - RETENTION OF TRAINED MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL 

Question. The NTSB's special investigation on "outages" highlighted the 
challenges you face in retaining technicians with the skills necessary to maintain the 
aging IBM 9020E computer. The investigation went on to report that changes in the 
Civil Service Retirement System could worsen this situation by hastening the 
retirement of these qualified technicians. What measures have you taken to retain the 
technicians necessary to keep these aging systems operational? 

Answer. To date, retention allowances have been granted to 21 retirement- 
eligible technicians who are certified in the maintenance of the IBM 9020E computer 
in five different locations. This monetary incentive is structured to retain technicians 
who would otherwise retire. 

Question. How have you used the tools granted to you through FAA 
personnel reform to retain these critical personnel? 

Answer. FAA personnel reform has granted the FAA Administrator the 
authority to approve all incentive provisions of the Federal Employees' Pay 
Comparability Act (FEPCA) This allows us to make efficient and prudent use of 
retention allowances, as described above. In addition, FAA has developed through 
personnel reform an Interim Incentive Pay plan which offers monetary incentives to 
employees at seven hard-to-staff facilities, two of which have the IBM 9020E 
computer. 

Question. Have you simultaneously been training newer technicians to 
maintain this equipment, or are we depending on older maintenance personnel to 
remain in the federal service until we retire this equipment? 

Answer. We are training newer technicians and not merely relying on older 
maintenance personnel. The FAA has provided training to 14 newer technicians. 

Question. What successes have you had in alleviating the shortage of spare 
parts for the IBM 9020E equipment? 

Answer. We did save one 9020D computer to use for parts when the HOST 
Computer was installed in the ARTCCs. This system was stored in a warehouse near 
the FAA Logistics Center. The components were removed from the system elements, 
catalogued, tested, and placed in support stock in June 1995 

ATC OUTAGES - CONTROLLER PROFICIENCY 

Question. ATC "outages" can require air traffic controllers to work in the so- 
called "DARC-Stand-Alone" mode. This is the mode provided by the back-up 
computer that has a lesser level of accuracy and specificity than your usual radar 
coverage. The NTSB criticized the lack of proficiency of air traffic controllers to 
operate in the "DARC-Stand-Alone" mode. What effiDrts have you made to rapidly 
train controllers to become more proficient at working under these conditions? 

Answer. Video training tapes which offisr an overview of backup radar 
systems, as well as procedures for transitioning to and from the backup systems, were 
delivered to the field in August, September, and October of 1995. Facilities 
conducted mandatory briefings using these tapes. In addition, a computer-based 



374 



refresher lesson on the various modes of the DARC system is under development and 
should be ready for delivery to the field in September 1996. 

Question. How would you describe the increased risk to the flying public 
when your controllers are required to operate in the "DARC-Stand Alone" mode? 

Answer. DARC provides the same level of radar accuracy and specificity as 
the normal radar tracking system. Therefore, there is no increase in risk to the flying 
public when utilizing DARC as a backup. Depending on the nature of the outage, 
DARC is either operated in "DARC-NAS" or "DARC only." The former receives 
flight plan information from the main computer and the latter does not Since 
automated flight data processing is not provided in "DARC only," controllers must 
access flight data information by manual means (handwritten strips) Manual flight 
data processing may result in an increased workload This can be mitigated by 
restricting the number of aircraft a controller works through traflfic management 
initiatives. 

ADDITIONAL SAFETY INSPECTORS AND CONTROLLERS 

Question. You are requesting a net increase of 250 controllers, 258 safety 
inspectors and 134 systems maintenance technicians The overall number of the total 
controller workforce has been decreasing and the controller training numbers appear 
quite small — six to ten per quarter. Your request for a net increase of 250 new 
controllers assumes that you will have to bring 500 new controllers into the system. 
What percentage of your current controller workforce is eligible for retirement in 
fiscal year 1 997? What are your outyear retirement projections? 

Answer. In fiscal year 1997, we estimate 3,148 members of the CWP will be 
eligible for retirement. This is 18 percent of the projected fiscal year 1997 CWF level 
of 1 7,300 Our outyear retirement projections are provided from the consolidated 
personnel management system's database of the number of controllers that become 
eligible to retire each year. We estimate that approximately 1 percent of the total 
eligible will actually retire each year. The following is a chart depicting those that 
were eligible prior to fiscal year 1998 and the outyear number of those controllers 
newly eligible for retirement. 



FY 1997 and Prior 
Eligible to Retire 


Number of Newly Eligible for Retirement 




FY 1998 


FY 1999 


FY 2000 


FY 2001 


FY 2002 


3,148 


354 


410 


444 


522 


841 



Question. Is your training pipeline, meaning not only the FAA Academy, but 
the entire process that renders a "Full Performance Level" controller, capable of 
bringing 500 new controllers into the system in fiscal year 1 997? 

Answer. Yes, the FAA Academy is capable of supporting up to 750 new air 
traffic controllers per year. Out of the 500 being hired in fiscal year 1 997, only the 
300 former controllers will be required to attend the initial screen at the academy. 
The others which consist mainly of the Collegiate Training Initiative (CTI) students 
and will report directly to their facilities. 



375 



The facilities that receive the controllers will not have difficulty with the 
training pipeline because the 500 new hires are spread out among many different 
facilities No single facility will receive more than 30 new trainees in a single year. 

Question Of the total number of new controllers how many are to be 
allocated to the FAA facilities in the New York/New Jersey area and when can they 
be expected? 

Answer The fiscal year 1996 hiring plan will place 16 former air traffic 
controllers in the New York terminal air traffic control facility by this September The 
placement of the 500 controllers that will be hired in fiscal year 1 997 has yet to be 
determined. 

Question. If you receive adequate funding for these positions, will you be able 
to staff all of your facilities to the levels called for in your agency's own staffing 
standards? 

Answer. We will have enough overall to staff all of our air traffic control 
positions However, due to staffing imbalances, we do not necessarily have everyone 
where we want them With the funding to increase the controller work force by 500 
in fiscal year 1997, we will be able to adequately staff all facilities and reduce staffing 
imbalances. 

Question. There have been several significant ATC outages over the past six 
months The operational integrity of the ATC system is no longer assured Have you 
identified priorities among the specific systems for an increased level of preventive 
maintenance? Is there a training pipeline associated with this personnel increase and if 
so is it capable of training 134 new personnel in fiscal year 1997? 

Answer. We have identified priorities for maintenance and improvement For 
example, a program to improve the ASR-9 system reliability was initiated this year. 
The areas of improvement are: circuit breaker coordination (power distribution), 
grounding and bonding, communications from ASR-9 site to the Automated Radar 
Terminal System (ARTS), and ASR-9/ MODE-S interface. These improvements will 
be made at all 134 ASR-9 sites This program also includes uninterruptible power 
system (UPS), and engine generator (EG) upgrades at ten sites which have 
experienced numerous commercial power outages. 

Work is underway to complete Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) 
Critical/Essential Power System (ACEPS) power upgrades at all ARTCC 's and 
selected TRACON's. To date, 23 of 27 facilities have been completed 

The FAA has utilized various teams to make assessments at facilities to give 
an in-depth view of the conditions of power distribution systems. These teams, 
including the "Blue Ribbon Panel" and the National Power Committee, have identified 
some shortcomings, and efforts are underway to address those currently within our 
fiscal reach Planning is being done to address those outside our fiscal reach. 

The Display Channel Complex (DCC) used in five ARTCC's has been failing 
due to age and will soon be replaced with state of the art hardware The first site for 
installation will be Chicago in December 1996. 

In answer to the second part of your question, we provide incremental training 
to new hires based on their experience and assignments. The new hire training pipeline 
has the capability of providing training to all 134 new hires for fiscal year 1997 In 
addition to classroom instruction, we have increased the hands-on training in these 



376 



areas to provide the technicians with a greater understanding of these systems. We 
also have given priority to the development of training courses to support the areas of 
power systems and display systems. 

SAFETY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM 

Question. The prevention of aviation casualties is the most cost effective 
safety measure. The addition of 258 safety and certification inspectors is most 
welcome. You have been working on developing the Safety Performance Analysis 
System (SPAS) since 1991, as a tool to target safety inspections in the aviation 
industry. SPAS was to be operational in late 1995. What is the status of SPAS? 
What has FAA done to address GAO's 1995 recommendation that you develop a 
comprehensive strategy to improve SPAS's data base quality? 

Answer. The development of the SPAS is on time. The 1995 version of the 
system (SPAS I) is the Operational Test version. It was operational in late fiscal year 
1995. By the end of December 1995, the principal inspectors of the operators that 
carry 95 percent of the flying public on scheduled flights had been trained and most 
installations had been completed. By February 1996, all installations had been 
completed. The SPAS I is fully implemented at 45 Flight Standards District Offices 
including 2 1 Certificate Management Offices. SPAS I is also implemented in 9 
Regions, FAA Headquarters, the FAA Technical Center, the Department of Defense, 
and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. SPAS II, designed for all of 
the safety inspector workforce, will be ready for initial deployment in September 
1997. Training and installation of the SPAS II system for 3,000 inspectors and 
supervisors will occur as a phased implementation commencing in September 1997 
and completing in 1999. The FAA Flight Standards Service has agreed that there is a 
need for an overall data quality improvement strategy that addresses the underlying 
data bases that SPAS accesses as do other users That strategy is currently in 
development and a draft plan has been received by Sandia National Laboratories. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT -- ATLANTIC CITY TECHNICAL CENTER 

Question. Your budget states that you intend to shift the focus of your 
research and development efforts more to the private sector by focusing on "off the 
shelf procurements and "nondevelopmental" solutions? At the same time, you are 
requesting increased funding for your overall R«S:D budget. How will this shift in 
focus impact the type and amount of work that is likely to be conducted at the FAA 
Technical Center? 

Answer, In our efforts to be more cost and time efficient in our "Total Life 
Cycle Acquisition" approach to modernizing the Air Traffic Control system, we are 
making every attempt to focus on "off the shelf procurements and utilization of 
"nondevelopmental items" for system components. Whether totally developed 
through our R&D efforts or COTS or NDI, all items must be tested and evaluated to 
insure they meet functional requirements and must be thoroughly integrated to insure 
full system operability. This testing, evaluation and integration is still the role and 
function of the Technical Center. The workload will remain the same, if not increase 
as NDI and COTS acquisitions increase the number of items more immediately 
available for testing and integration. 



377 



NEWARK AIRPORT 

Question. The fiscal year 1995 Transportation Appropriation bill included 
$1.5 million for an Instrument Landing System (ILS) for Runway 22 Right at Newark 
Airport In 1997, Newark Runway 22 Left/4 Right will be closed for major runway 
rehabilitation, lasting over a period of several months. When this runway is closed, 
southbound arrivals are diverted to Runway 22 Right. Runway 22 Left has an ILS - 
Runway 22 Right does not. If the weather deteriorates at all during the closure of 22 
Left (a runway which is used 45 percent of the time, sometimes more during the 
summer months when the prevailing winds are from the south) significant airport 
delays will result as traffic is diverted to 22 Right. In light of the pending 
construction, what can the FAA do to expedite the installation of the new ILS for 
Runway 22 Right'' 

Answer. An environmental assessment is required for installation of an ILS on 
runway 22R. Rather, than advertise/award an environmental assessment contract 
through the FAA regional process, a contract was awarded to a firm under a FAA 
national contract to expedite the ILS project completion. 

Under FAA procedures and the National Environmental Act of 1969, no 
construction action for an ILS can be initiated until the environmental process has 
been completed Resolution of environmental noise issues and completion of the 
environmental process took several years for the recent runway 1 1 ILS at Newark 
International Airport. While the environmental process is underway, it is uncertain if 
similar community noise concerns will delay runway 22R ILS installation. 

The runway 22R ILS equipment has been ordered and will be available for 
installation when required. The optimum ILS installation/commissioning schedule is: 



Phase of Work 


Completion Date 


E A/Record of Decision 


5/97 


Engineering 


8/97 


Award construction contract 


9/97 


Site construction 


11/97 


Equipment installation 


1/98 


Flight check 


1/98 


Commissioning 


3/98 



We will continue to closely monitor activity/progress on this critical ILS 
project to achieve the foregoing commissioning schedule. 

Question. While the new ILS for Runway 1 1 at Newark Airport has improved 
the flow and efficiency of traffic to that runway over the past year, FAA, the airport 
and the airlines all agree that the addition of a light system would greatly reduce 
landing minimums and improve arrival rates by providing pilots with a better view of 
the runway in bad weather. And, all agree that the best system would be a MALSR. 
What is the FAA's time line for the procurement, installation and commissioning of a 
MALSR-? 

Answer. The MALSR installation/commissioning schedule, based upon 
successful conclusion of the required environmental assessment (EA) process, is: 

Phase of Work Completion Date 

EA Request For Proposal 2/96 

Negotiate/ A ward EA Contract 4/96 

Field Engineering Site Survey 5/96 



378 



EA/Record of Decision (ROD) 


5/97 


Engineering 


8/97 


Award Construction Contract 


2/98 


Site Construction 


8/98 


Flight Check 


8/98 


Commissioning 


9/98 



Question. Can this project be completed in the next nine months? 

Answer. No, As previously noted, the required environmental assessment 
process will not be completed until May 1997. Responsive to the National 
Environment Act of 1969 and under FAA procedures, no construction action for an 
ILS can be initiated until the environmental assessment process has been completed. 

Question. The Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA) is an important 
feature in the FAA's Automated Radar Tracking System IIIA and is currently being 
adapted to the System at New York's TRACON. The CRDA enhances the ability to 
use two runways safely during instrument weather conditions, significantly increasing 
airport capacity and reducing delays. CRDA has passed the most critical phases of 
implementation, and I am told that it should be implemented at the TRACON this 
September. Is September still the expected implementation date? 

Answer. September 1 997, not September 1 996, is still the expected date for 
the implementation of the operational prototype Controller Automated Spacing Aid 
(CAS A) Build 1 enhancement to make the CRDA work for the New York TRACON. 

Question. Will the required staffmg, training and equipment, plus the 
redesigning of the airspace, if necessary, be in place in time for the implementation 
date? If not, why not? 

Answer. Prior to the CASA operational prototype installation in September 
1997, all required staffing, training and equipment will be in place. 

Question. Is there enough funding to implement and maintain the CRDA 
program at Newark and other airports? 

Answer There is sufficient funding to conduct a CASA prototype evaluation 
at Newark A decision to proceed to full scale development/production at other sites 
will depend on the prototype evaluation results at Newark and their specific 
cost/benefit analysis results. 

TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR 

Question. I understand that the TDWR at Newark has been installed but that 
the pedestal is not functioning and must be repaired or replaced. The FAA informs 
me that it is negotiating with Raytheon to do the work and the goal for the 
commissioning of the TDWR is the end of 1996 

I am surprised that this project would take seven months to complete, perhaps 
longer. Is this timeline a typical one for a project such as this? What complexities in 
the negotiations require such lengthy discussions? 

Answer. The seven-month period includes four months to complete the 
repairs and three months for system checkout and testing leading to commissioning 



379 



The four-month repair time includes required testing and analysis to assure that the 
pedestal repair proposed by the contractor will completely solve the problem. 

Prior to the actual start of repair activities, the FAA must be assured that this 
repair will last for the planned 20-year life of the radar During this 20-year period the 
pedestal must accommodate those stresses encountered in normal operations as well 
as the stresses placed on the radar during major maintenance activities such as 
replacing bearings or gears 

PAY BONUSES IN NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY 

Question At the beginning of this month, the FAA used the "personnel 
reform" authority granted in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill to provide for a 7 
percent pay bonus for a short list of facilities. This bonus will increase to 10 percent 
beginning on October 1 . In my region, this bonus is only being paid to FAA personnel 
at the New York Center and the New York TRACON - the same two facilities that 
benefited from the old "pay differential" program. 

Please explain the rational for not providing this pay bonus to the other FAA 
facilities in the New York/New Jersey region? Certainly the cost of living is no less 
around the other facilities. 

Answer. The FAA has limited financial resources and had to target the interim 
incentive pay to the most critical and complex facilities that have historically had 
difficulty recruiting and retaining controllers. These, for the most part, were facilities 
that had been receiving the old pay demonstration program which is being phased out 
Cost of living was only one factor in determining which facilities would receive the 
interim incentive pay. 

Question. Please explain in exhaustive detail the manner in which the 
classification process will take into account the complexity of the airspace that the 
controllers are working and the proximity of the airspace that the controllers are 
working to other active airports? 

Answer The classification proposal takes into account various types of 
airspace in which aircraft are worked. These types of airspace are labeled Class B, C, 
and Terminal Radar Service Area (TRSA). Aircraft that traverse these classes of 
airspace are given an additional weight because of the added complexity that is 
required to work them. Class B airspace surrounds the busiest airports and requires 
an ATC clearance to enter. While in Class B airspace aircraft receive radar services. 
Class C airspace requires that radar services be provided to all aircraft that enter, i.e. 
sequencing, traffic advisories, and safety alerts VFR aircraft are only separated from 
IFR aircraft within the airspace. TRSA airspace surrounds designated airports 
wherein ATC provides radar service for all IFR and participating VFR aircraft 

The proximity of secondary airports also increases complexity In those areas 
where secondary airports are within 15 miles of the primary airport, additional weights 
are given for workload complexity. The controller has to simultaneous separate 
traffic arriving and departing secondary airports from primary airport operations The 
complexity diminishes the greater the distance the secondary airport is from the 
primary airport. 

Question. Will this reclassification process take into account such things as 
the local cost of living and the time it takes to commute to work? 



Answer The classification proposal does not take into account cost of living 
areas or commuting distance; however cost of living allowances are addressed under j 
separate program. 



1996. 



Question. When do you expect this reclassification action to be completed? 
Answer. The classification proposal is expected to be completed June 30, 



Question If certain FAA personnel are likely to see pay increases result from 
this reclassification process, is it also assumed that certain FAA employees will face 
pay cuts? 

Answer. The Classification and Compensation Work Group is only tasked 
with classification of facilities A separate team will handle the pay aspect, however it 
is the intent of the classification work group that no one will lose pay, that is, 
everyone will be in a save pay status. 

Question. Last year, you announced your intention to hire hundreds of 
additional controllers including several former PATCO controllers. What became of 
this initiative and where were those controllers sent? 

Answer. The FAA's initiatives for hiring controllers includes our plans for 
hiring 100 controllers in fiscal year 1996 and 500 in fiscal year 1997 The 500 
controllers hired in fiscal year 1997 will consist of 300 former controllers, 150 
Collegiate Training Initiatives, and 50 controllers from other areas (veterans, 
cooperative education students, and reinstatements). We are presently working on the 
placement of the 500 controllers for 1997. The list of facilities receiving the new 
controller hires in fiscal year 1996 follows: 



HIRING PLAN FOR FY 1996 





Former 
Controllers 


College Training 
Initiative (CTI) 


CO-OP 

students 


Veterans 


Reinstate 
ment 


Total 


Alaska Region 














Juneau ATCT 




1 








1 


MeiTill Field ATCT 




3 








3 


Regional Total 





4 











4 
















Eastern Region 














New York TRACON 


16 










16 


Regional Total 


16 













16 
















Great Lakes Region 















Chicago ARTCC 


13 




1 




4 


18 


Chicago TRACON 


6 










6 


Cleveland ATCT 




3 








3 


Indianapolis ARTCC 


7 









1 


8 


Regional Total 


26 


3 


1 





5 


35 
















Western Pacific Region 














Oakland ARTCC 


8 










8 


Oakland Day TRACON 


4 










4 


Van Nuys ATCT 


2 










2 


Palm Springs ATCT 


2 










2 


Burbank AfC T 


2 










2 


CamarilloATCT 




1 








1 



381 



Chino ATCT 


1 










2 


Carlsbad ATCT 












1 


El Monte ATCT 












2 


U Verne Brackett ATCT 


1 










3 


Reid Hllview ATCT 


1 










2 


Grand Canyon ATCT 












1 


Santa Monica Muni ATCT 


1 










2 


San Diego Brown ATCT 












2 


Ha>-\\-ard ATCT 


2 










2 


Livennore ATCT 


2 










2 


Palo Alto ATCT 


3 










3 


Reeional Total 


29 


12 











41 
















Southern Region 














San Juan ATCT 


2 














2 


San Juan CERAP 


1 










1 


St. Thomas ATCT 


1 










1 


Regional Total 


4 














4 
















Grand Total 


75 


19 


1 





5 


100 









































































Question I understand that, in order to deal with staffing shortages, 
controllers are increasingly being required to staff two or more positions at the same 
time I am also told that last week, the tower at LaGuardia Airport opened in the 
morning with only three fijlly-trained controllers in the tower. Even so, the supervisor 
disallowed the use of overtime because of directives from the regional office of 
disallowing the use of overtime. This resulted in the closing of certain air space in and 
around Manhattan, and the temporary shut-down of helicopter traffic in and out of 
Manhattan. How do you explain this situation and how commonplace is it? 

Answer Generally speaking, positions of operation are not combined at 
LaGuardia any more than at any other facility of similar traffic volume and 
complexity. Positions are combined when the traffic situation permits such action. 

Specifically, on the morning of April 23 as the day shift began at LaGuardia, 
the tower supervisor did suspend Class B airspace service for approximately one hour 
This decision was based on the following circumstances: 

One flill-performance-level (FPL) controller is on extended sick leave due to a 
serious illness, one FPL called in requesting sick leave, and another FPL received an 
unexpected summons to jury duty. One area supervisor and one FPL were on 
scheduled annual leave and the NATCA facility representative was on detail outside of 
the facility. In fact, that lefl three FPL's, two developmentals, and two air traffic 
assistants on duty. One employee was already scheduled for overtime for the evening 
shift and, in an effort to conserve overtime spending, the supervisor on duty made the 
decision to wait for a staff specialist to arrive at 8 a.m. to supplement the staffing. 
Traffic at this hour was very light, and the supervisor took the opportunity to place 
two developmentals in on-the-job training in lieu of opening the Class B airspace 
position A review of the situation indicates that only two aircraft were denied CBA 
services during this time. 



382 



In conclusion, we believe that this situation was managed appropriately. In 
addition, the training of developmentals is given a very high priority at LaGuardia 
The air traffic manager has made the supervisor aware, however, that curtailment of 
services to Class B airspace users is an operational impact that must be considered 

JESSICA DUBROFF -- CHILD PILOTS 

Question. The April 1 1 tragedy that claimed the lives of Jessica Dubroff, the 
seven-year-old pilot, as well as her father and her instructor pilot highlighted the fact 
that current regulations allow young children to fly planes, so long as they are 
accompanied by a qualified adult. The NTSB is still conducting its investigation as to 
the cause of the crash I understand that you are currently reviewing these regulations 
and preparing a report that will address whether we should be allowing children to 
manipulate the controls of a plane. What is your target date for the completion of this 
report'' 

Answer. The internal team preparing the report completed data collection on 
May 14 The FAA will have a draft to the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(ARAC) on General Aviation Operations on May 22 The FAA team will then 
consider all ARAC comments and revise the draft accordingly. The final report will 
be presented to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator on May 28 for approval 
and subsequent delivery to the Secretary of Transportation on June 3 

Question. Is your study likely to recommend changes in either rule or statute 
that will address safety concerns'' 

Answer The report will provide background and data analysis to allow the 
Aviation Rulemaking and Advisory Committee on General Aviation Operations to 
make appropriate recommendations Once the FAA receives the recommendations, a 
decision will be made on rulemaking. 

Question Will the study solicit and incorporate the views of the NTSB'' 
Answer The report will include NTSB accident/incident data concerning non- 
certificated persons manipulating the controls The April 11, 1996, accident is still 
under investigation, and that investigation is not scheduled to be completed for several 
months To date, there have been no NTSB recommendations issued The report is 
due to the Secretary of Transportation on June 3, consequently, any NTSB 
recommendations will be addressed separately from the report The ARAC on 
General Aviation Operations will be providing input and recommendations to the 
Internal Review Team, including comments on the report itself The ARAC on 
General Aviation Operations consists of industry representatives with FAA 
participation No employees of NTSB are on ARAC nor are any NTSB employees 
participating on the internal review team preparing the report 

Question. Currently, the FAA can issue a student pilot's license at age 16, and 
can issue a full pilot's license at age 17. The FAA imposes age restrictions in these 
cases presumably because the student license allows one only to fly solo while the fijll 
pilot's license allows one to carry passengers Do you support an additional general 
age limit which prohibits children from manipulating the controls of an aircraft? 

Answer An internal review team is currently gathering data for a report to the 
ARAC on General Aviation Operations, which will make appropriate 



recommendations. Once the FAA receives the recommendations, a decision will be 
made on rulemaking. 

Question. If your study reveals evidence showing that it is unsafe for children 
to manipulate controls of a plane, will the FAA impose an age restriction? 

Answer. The FAA will determine if rulemaking is necessary based upon the 
recommendations of the ARAC on General Aviation Operations. 

Question. Early indications from the Wyoming crash indicate that the crash 
was caused by instructor pilot error. Do you think that the criteria for certifying 
instructor pilots is adequate? 

Answer. Yes, however, under current proposed changes to Federal Aviation 
Regulations Part 61, there would be three significant changes to certified flight 
insturctor (CFI) certification: (1) Renewal criteria for all CFI's would be changed to 
require that the CFI sign off five applicants (for any certificate or rating) in the 
preceding 24 calendar months and four of those applicants must have passed their 
certification tests; (2) the proposed change also formalizes the requirement for spin 
training for all CFI's; and (3) there would be new experience requirements for CFI's 
who instruct initial or new CFI applicants, i.e., at least 400 hours as an instructor in a 
FAR Part 141 program. 

Question. What is the FAA doing to address concerns about instructor pilot 
error? 

Answer. On April 24, 1996, the Administrator distributed a letter on 
instructor responsibility and authority to all 80,000 certificated flight instructors. The 
entire letter, or excerpts from it, will also be given wider distribution through 
publication in FAA Aviation News, AOPA Pilot, EAA Sport Aviation, Flight 
Training, and Flight School Business News. 



QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HARKIN 
AVIATION RESEARCH PROGRAM 

Question. Aviation safety issues continue to arise, particularly for aging 
aircraft and because of increased advance materials use. Recent specific concerns that 
have received public attention include detection of cracks in engine rotating 
components, detection of a 39-inch crack in an aircraft fuselage, and failure of 
commuter propellers Increased demands are being placed on maintenance and 
inspection, a critical part of the Aviation Safety Technology programs. 

Because of the continued well defined need, what plans does the FAA have to 
strengthen aviation research programs in the areas that impact these concerns? 

Answer. The FAA already has a very strong program to address the issues 
related to inspection of engine rotating components. The FAA established the Engine 
Titanium Consortium (ETC) in 1993 to develop inspection tools for detection of 
material defects in jet engine titanium. Innovative approaches to billet inspection and 
in service tools are under development by ETC participants: Allied-Signal, General 
Electric, Iowa State University, and Pratt & Whitney. Funding for this effort is 
continuing at a level sufficient to insure that the critical needs are met. 



384 



A visual inspection reliability program is in progress at AANC for both 
transport and commuter category aircraft. A draft advisory circular recommending 
procedures with high probability of detection is in the signature cycle. This is in 
addition to the NDE programs that are in place to increase the capability of detecting 
smaller flaws in structural components. 

Efforts to address the aging propeller issues have been initiated by the FAA. 
Initial activities include developing and updating of advisory material and 
airworthiness directives to address and resolve known problems Planned activities 
include investigation of corrosion fatigue, flight loads data collection, and 
development of corrosion protection materials for propellers. 

Question. Existing FAA research programs such as CASR and AANC have 
demonstrated their ability to implement research results and transfer those results into 
real use in the field. What mechanisms does the FAA have in place to insure that the 
needed focus on aviation safety is not diminished and that support for this priority be 
maintained? 

Answer. The FAA has established a procedure for determining priorities 
among the numerous research and development projects submitted by internal FAA 
sponsors for potential funding. Priorities are determined after a thorough review by 
representatives of each of the FAA Regional Offices, the Aircraft Certification 
Service, Flight Standards Service, and the Technical Center. Priorities are then 
balanced against available funds. 

Question Will support for CASR and AANC be returned to original levels as 
the need does not seem to have diminished? 

Answer. The current FAA R,E&D congressional budget is approximately 
two-thirds of the fiscal year 1995 budget. As a result, most programs will experience 
some reduction in funding Should these budget figures hold, CASR and AANC 
budgets will most likely be reduced to approximately two-thirds of the fiscal year 
1995 levels The anticipation is that these funding levels will remain at the reduced 
level Though these are substantial reductions, other elements in the inspection 
program area have been forced to incur even larger reductions. 

Question A recent National Research Council report highlights the needs 
related to advanced materials and urges the FAA to step up advanced materials efforts 
including in service inspection and improved NDE techniques Given the needs noted, 
1 am concerned about the lack of sufficient support in the budget for this area How 
has the FAA responded to these recommendations? 

Answer The FAA's inspection research was originally focused on aging 
aircraft issues only, i.e , metallic structures As composite issues were subsequently 
identified, several program inspection projects were established to include advanced 
materials applications, such as Thermal Wave Imaging and Optical Interferometry, 
both through CASR. Additional tasks have been initiated in fiscal year 1996 at 
CASR, specifically to address the evaluation of composite repair techniques. 

Question. Are technical and budget plans in place to address the safety issues 
related to implementation of these new materials? 

Answer. Technical plans are in place to address the safety and certification 
issues associated with the introduction of new materials, new forms of present 



385 



materials, and changes to manufacturing methods In particular, research projects 
which address the primary differences between composite aircraft structures and metal 
aircraft structures have been identified. Due to R,E&D budget reductions, the 
ftmding level in fiscal year 1996 and the proposed funding levels in fiscal year 1997 
and beyond will not be at the level required to maintain existing programs or initiate 
the majority of the new programs. 

Question. Do you plan to implement the recommendations of the Challenge 
2000 report? 

Answer The FAA has established a high level management team to study the 
Booz-Allen & Hamilton and R.E&Development Advisory Committee reports. This 
team will prepare a plan to meet the aviation challenges of the next century using 
applicable recommendations from these two reports as well as other FAA planning 
documents and studies. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR INOUYE 

Question: For each and every FAA facility in the state of Hawaii, please 
provide a table displaying the authorized number of positions as well as the FTE level 
and average on-board strength for FY 1994 and FY 1995, as well as your estimates 
for FY 1996 and FY 1997. Please also cite the level of "overtime" funding that was 
utilized or is budgeted for each facility. 

Answer; In the Airway Facilities organization, staffing and associated 
personnel, compensation and benefits is not distributed or charged at the facility level. 
The lowest reportable level, is the System Support Centers (SSC) The SSCs house 
the administrative and technical personnel required to maintain the facilities associated 
with the center. The charts below depict the staffing and overtime associated with the 
eight SSCs in the state of Hawaii. 



STAFFING (FTEs) | 




Fiscal year 1994 


Fiscal year 1995 | 


FACILITY 


AUTH 


CEILING 


EOY ON- 
BOARD 


AUTH 


CEILING 


EOY ON- 
BOARD 


HIP SMO Hdqtrs 


34 


31 


29 


32 


29 


28 


CERAP SSCs * 


55 


50 


45 


56 


50 


39 


Mt. Kaala SSC 


8 


7 


8 


9 


8 


8 


Oahu SSC 


16 


15 


14 


15 


14 


12 


Oahu Environ. SSC 


9 


8 


8 


10 


9 


10 


Kauai SSC 


8 


7 


-.8 


8 


7 


8 


Maui SSC 


11 


10 


12 


11 


10 


9 


Hawaii SSC 


14 


13 


13 


13 


12 


13 


Total 


155 


141 


137 


154 


139 


127 



386 



STAFFING (FTEs) | 




Fiscal Year 1996 


Fiscal Year 1997 | 


FACILITY 


AUTH 


CEILING 


EOY ON- 
BOARD 


AUTH 


CEILING 


EOY ON- 
BOARD 


HIP SMO Hdqtrs 


33 


31 


29 


33 


31 


29 


CERAP SSCs * 


54 


50 


45 


54 


50 


45 


Mt. Kaala SSC 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


Oahu SSC 


17 


15 


13 


17 


15 


13 


Oahu Environ. SSC 


9 


8 


8 


9 


8 


8 


Kauai SSC 


8 


8 


7 


8 


8 


7 


Maui SSC 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


Hawaii SSC 


13 


13 


14 


13 


13 


14 


Total 


152 


143 


134 


152 


143 


134 



* The on board staffing at the CERAP dropped from 45 in fiscal year] 994 to 39 in 
fiscal year 1995 and is projected to increase back to 45 by the end of fiscal year 
1996 This drop in staffing was due to the buyout program in fiscal year 1995. We 
had nine retirements from the CERAP during that year and one other person 
transferred out. Due to the large drop in staffing at the CERAP for fiscal year 1995, 
overtime expenditures doubled from the previous year. Overtime continues to be 
high in fiscal year 1996 due to the number of new hires that cannot stand watch until 
they are certified. We expect some relief in this situation during fiscal year 1997. 
** Increases due to activities in LINCS and DOD Base Closure Programs 

At the present time, there are six Air Traffic Control facilities in the state of 
Hawaii: Honolulu Combined Center and Approach Control (CERAP), Honolulu Air 
Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), Honolulu Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS), 
Kahului ATCT, Hilo ATCT, and Kona ATCT. Below is a chart listing these facilities 
and providing a comparison of regionally authorized and actual on-board (AOB) full- 
time equivalent staffing for fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1997. A comparison 
of the AOB FTE levels reveals that there has been no substantial change in the 
number of facility personnel over the past three years at these facilities. 

The Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at Kona is a low activity (Level I) 
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) facility. As such, it is eligible for conversion to a contract 
tower operation under the ongoing FAA Level I Contract Tower Program Such a 
conversion would be similar to that which occurred at Molokai ATCT in fiscal year 
1994, and Lihue ATCT in fiscal year 1995. No decision has been made concerning 
the contracting of the Kona ATCT as of this time. 

Senate Report 104-126 on the Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 1996 
Appropriations Act directed the FAA to initiate action to acquire a new site for the 
Honolulu Combined Center Radar Approach (CERAP) facility, currently located in 
the Diamond Head Crater. A high level work group has been established to address 
issues relating to all oceanic air traffic operations under the FAA's jurisdiction. These 
issues include the delegation of airspace and the physical location of facilities. We 
expect to reach a final decision on a new site by August 1996. 



387 



OVERTIME ($) 1 


FACILITY 


FY 1994 


FY 1995 


FY 1996 EST 


FY 1997 EST 


HIP SMO Hdqtrs 


$28,417 


$42,965 


$15,000 


$15,000 


CERAP SSCs * 


$47,156 


$92,996 


$85,000 


$65,000 


Mt Kaala SSC 


$7,381 


$2,740 


$10,000 


$8,000 


Oahu SSC 


$16,212 


$58,219** 


$25,000 


$25,000 


Oahu Environ SSC 


$581 


$7,330 


$5,000 


$5,000 


Kauai SSC 


$4,319 


$6,349 


$5,000 


$5,000 


Maui SSC 


$4,622 


$6,927 


$5,000 


$5,000 


1 lawaii SSC 


$8,759 


$15,899** 


$5,000 


$5,000 



Question For each instance in which there is a substantial change in these 
figures from one year to the next, please provide a detailed explanation as to what 
FAA policy, operational change, facility consolidation, facility expansion, or other 
circumstance have or will gave rise to each change. Please be sure to describe in great 
detail all possible facility consolidations, moves or closures that are under 
consideration for fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997 or beyond that may result in 
substantial staffing changes at each facility. 

Answer. As the staffing charts depict, we anticipate no changes in staffing. 
We are, however, planning to move the CERAP at Diamond Head from its current 
location, to a "yet to be determined" location on the island. This will in no way 
change the staffing levels we are currently projecting. 



SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS 

Senator Hatfield. This will conclude our hearing at this time. 
We will have our next session of this subcommittee on Thursday, 
May 9, at 10 a.m., in this room when we will have the Federal 
Transit Administration lead by Administrator Gordon Linton as 
our witness. 

The subcommittee is recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Thursday, May 2, the subcommittee 
was recessed, to reconvene at 10:04 a.m., Thursday, May 9.] 



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RE- 
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
FISCAL YEAR 1997 



THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1996 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 

Washington, DC. 
The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark O. Hatfield (chairman) presid- 
ing. 
Present: Senators Hatfield, Specter, and Lautenberg. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

statement of gordon j. linton, administrator 

accompanied by: 

janette sadik-khan, acting deputy administrator 

BERLE M. SCfflLLER, CHIEF COUNSEL 

HIRAM J. WALKER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, PROGRAM MAN- 
AGEMENT 

OPENING REMARKS 

Senator Hatfield. Good morning. I am very happy to welcome 
the panel here, headed by Mr. Linton, to present the Federal Tran- 
sit Administration's 1997 budget proposal. 

Today I am pleased to welcome you, Mr. Linton, as the Adminis- 
trator of the Federal Transit Administration. Let me first of all 
make some observations and then perhaps in your testimony you 
could either touch on them or make comment. 

First, the request for an additional $100 million in transit oper- 
ating aid would be a 25-percent increase above the enacted level. 
This request will be extremely difficult to meet within the frame- 
work of this subcommittee's overall responsibilities. 

As you know, we have several large fast-spending accounts which 
would have to be cut to increase the transit operating assistance. 
Accommodating this request would require cuts in Federal Aviation 
Administration operations which include 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a- 
week air traffic control operations and U.S. Coast Guard salaries 
and expenses which pays for search and rescue activities, environ- 
mental compliance, and other safety and law enforcement func- 
tions. 

(389) 



390 

Second, the observation is that the administration's policy re- 
garding transit operating aid has been very inconsistent, or at least 
it is confusing to me. In fiscal year 1995, the President proposed 
to cut operating aid, but Congress held the line. In fiscal 1996, the 
President proposed an even greater cut than his 1995 request. Con- 
gress agreed to cuts but adopted an equitable approach to protect 
the smaller systems rather than the administration's across-the- 
board cuts. Now for fiscal 1997, the administration is proposing a 
huge increase above the enacted level in a manner that is not well- 
reasoned with respect to the different needs of large and small 
transit systems. 

Scarce Federal resources must be targeted where they can do the 
most good, and that is the philosophy that guides this subcommit- 
tee's decisions. 

While the administration's budget does not increase the formula 
capital grant program, the discretionary capital grants program 
would increase by $134 million. The growth in the discretionary 
program is mainly in the new starts category, which would grow 
to $800 million, up 20 percent. 

First, I am troubled that the growth in the new starts program 
is almost entirely at the expense of the bus and bus facilities pro- 
gram, which account is cut by 18 percent. While I support provid- 
ing more funds for new starts that are cost effective and worth- 
while, such deep cuts to the bus category, I think, have to have 
very careful review, and I would appreciate your comment. More- 
over, the FTA's proposal also increases the rail modernization pro- 
gram — up 9 percent — at the expense of the bus program. 

In addition, the FTA had made commitments to provide six more 
new start projects with full funding grant agreements this year. 
Since fiscal year 1997 is the last year of the ISTEA program, I 
wonder how we will finish $3.2 billion in additional new starts con- 
struction on top of the billions of dollars' worth of projects already 
in the pipeline. This subcommittee is working hard to finish those 
projects already underway. New projects that will require large 
Federal investments must be carefully scrutinized prior to receiv- 
ing major commitments of Federal funds. Ongoing projects that 
have encountered significant problems and additional costs also 
must be reviewed. I hope, Mr. Linton, that you will give us your 
insight on how we can address these challenges presented by these 
new projects. 

Time " magazine's April 22 article entitled, "Clinton's Stealth 
Campaign," focused on the President's efforts on dishing out the 
pork. That in itself is news, because. Senator Lautenberg, I had as- 
sumed from the media that only the Congress dealt in pork, but 
that is an interesting commentary. In the areas of key campaign 
locations, new starts transit projects represented four out of nine 
projects mentioned as examples by Time magazine. 

I just hope that this budget is not taking us down a path where 
the Federal Government makes commitments that we cannot af- 
ford to honor. Our task must focus on completion of projects now 
underway and careful assessments of new projects. 

Federal support for mass transit has been vital to the mobility 
needs of millions of transit riders who depend on it each day, in- 
cluding the elderly and disabled people. Transit helps mitigate traf- 



391 

fic congestion, solves highway gridlock problems, and protects the 
environment. 

And in Portland, as an example, the light rail system now under 
construction is expected to generate $800 million in new economic 
activity as a multiplier. It is an example of how good urban plan- 
ning and enhanced mobility can provide people with a better qual- 
ity of life. 

I will continue to support Federal funding for mass transit, and 
look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and I only raise 
these points in order to receive further clarification so that we can 
work harmoniously and in cooperation to achieve the 1997 appro- 
priation. 

I would now invite the former chairman of our subcommittee and 
certainly a copartner in our efforts at this point in our committee's 
life, Senator Frank Lautenberg, to make any opening statements 
he wishes to make. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, as 
we review the various Departments of Transportation we recognize, 
Mr. Chairman, that we will not have the benefit of your experience 
and sagacity, if I may say, in other hearings for this Department 
and with this group of leaders. 

We note with sorrow that you are not going to be here, Mr. 
Chairman, because even if we had a disagreement, I never found 
you disagreeable, and that is a rare condition around here. This is 
like a cocoon of civility that hardly exists in many other places, but 
I have enjoyed working with you on all matters of transportation 
appropriations over these years, and I think the cause for transpor- 
tation investment in this country has been advanced by your lead- 
ership and we will, as I said earlier, miss it. 

This year is an interestmg budgetary year, the one we are look- 
ing at in 1997. The request calls for an overall freeze on transpor- 
tation funding. However, within that budget, the President has re- 
quested a sizable increase for FTA. 

Obviously, coming from the State of New Jersey, the most dense- 
ly populated State in the country, the most urbanized State in the 
country, I strongly support this proposed increase. It is critical that 
transit be treated as a priority, especially considering that it was 
cut disproportionately in last year's appropriation process. 

Also, I think current events cause us to examine our thinking 
about how we help people get from here to there, whether it be 
work to home or work to play, or wherever they go, as we watch 
gas prices increase, as we see congestion increase, as we see air 
further fouled by constant use of the automobile, wear and tear on 
the highways is almost beyond the stage of catchup, and so frankly 
I see a transit investment as an important adjunct to the transpor- 
tation infrastructure, and I am sorry to see that we are not invest- 
ing further, but am pleased by the direction it has taken. 

Transit in my State and States like mine is a critical part of the 
structure. It serves millions of Americans, many of whom have no 
realistic transportation alternative. It reduces congestion, as I said, 
air pollution on our highways, and unfortunately, as the Adminis- 
trator will testify, our current level of transit investment does not 



392 

even allow us to make substantive progress toward replacing our 
existing but deteriorating infrastructure. 

We certainly have reason to be proud of our recent successes and 
boosting transit ridership in selected cities around the country. In 
my State, as I mentioned before, the most densely populated State 
in the country, the $115 million included in this budget for the 
Sikorkis transfer and the Hudson-Bergan waterfront projects will 
go a long way toward improving mobility and minimizing travel 
times for New Jersey's residents. 

Even so, we need to recognize that nationally we are still a long 
way from reversing the trends toward increased congestion and 
longer commutes. The needs for mass transit are great, and they 
grow. 

The severe need for transit is one reason why I supported the 
provisions in ISTEA that allowed transportation funds to be used 
in a flexible manner. If a given State or localitv believes that its 
transit system's needs are more critical than other transportation 
needs, I do not think we here in Washington should deny them the 
freedom to make those choices. In my view, the flexibility provided 
by ISTEA is working well. The States and localities have moved al- 
most $2.5 billion into transit investment. 

I look forward to working with the Administrator, the chairman, 
colleagues on this committee and on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee to keep our system flexible when ISTEA is reau- 
thorized. 

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might beg your indulgence for a mo- 
ment. The Budget Committee started a few minutes late and thus 
I was not able to join in the opening discussion. It is important 
that I get there. It is important that I be here. I tried to figure a 
way to divide me at least in quarters or something of that nature, 
but it did not work. They said the whole is not that good, so how 
can we work with the quarters? 

So I would ask consent to submit questions for the record and 
ask the Administrator to please respond as promptly as can be, and 
I welcome the very good team that we have here representing Fed- 
eral transit. 

Senator Hatfield. Senator Lautenberg, yes, we want to accom- 
modate your duality of commitments this morning. I think frankly 
it is probably more important for you to go over there and make 
sure that Budget Committee faces some reality in the areas of non- 
defense discretionary programs. 

Senator Lautenberg. I would not go that far, Mr. Chairman. 
[Laughter.] 

Senator Hatfield. At least I would have much more confidence 
knowing that you were there and they might reach a reasonable 
budget resolution, and we will look to Peter to provide the ques- 
tions that you want Administrator Linton to deal with. Thank you 
very much for your comments. 

RECOGNITION OF GRACE CRUNICAN 

Before I call on the Administrator, I have to take note that Grace 
Crunican, who is your former Deputy Administrator, has heard the 
call of the great Oregon country and has returned to the Promised 
Land and the great Garden of Eden out there, and I will soon fol- 



393 

low her. She certainly will be missed. I just want to record that 
here. I know you have replaced her with a very competent person. 

She, as you know, will now be the new director of the Oregon De- 
partment of Transportation, carrying with her the same fine com- 
mitment that she has had, that she demonstrated back here, of 
course, in your company on mass transit issues and other matters 
related to transportation. We just feel very fortunate that she had 
this experience here in Washington in association with you, and I 
just want to take note of that because we have not lost her. We 
have just had her come back home. 

So Mr. Administrator, we are ready to hear your testimony. If 
you wish to highlight it or handle it in a summary form, or how- 
ever, the entire statement as printed will be placed in the record. 

TESTIMONY OF FTA ADMINISTRATOR LINTON 

Mr. Linton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 
to mention also that the formal statement has been submitted to 
the committee. I will go through some brief remarks from my oral 
statement. 

Let me just say, it is a pleasure for me to appear before you and 
members of the staff of the committee, and I understand the con- 
flicts with Senator Lautenberg and thank him for his presence for 
the time that he was here and look forward to responding to ques- 
tions he will be submitting to us. We will make sure that we re- 
spond to the committee. 

Joining me this morning is Janette Sadik-Khan, who is the Act- 
ing Deputy Administrator. As you noted, she is here to replace 
Grace Crunican, and as you said, we will miss Grace. She has been 
a strong member of our team, someone who has provided valuable 
insight and tremendous commitment to transportation, but also a 
commitment to America. 

We think that Grace Crunican is an impact player. She will have 
impact wherever she goes, and we know she will make a major con- 
tribution to Oregon DOT, and in our relationships with the State 
departments of transportation, we will continue to be able to work 
with her in her new role. 

To my left is Hiram Walker. Hiram is the Associate Adminis- 
trator for Program Management. To my far right is Berle Schiller. 
Berle Schiller is the chief counsel at the FTA. 

But before I start, Mr. Chairman, let me also congratulate you 
on a very successful career in the Senate and wish you well in 
whatever comes next. We have benefited from your wise and even- 
handed leadership that has had a tremendous impact on the coun- 
try, not least of all in the area of transit, where your experience 
and knowledge has been pivotal in helping the industry survive 
during challenging years. 

I have enjoyed working with you. I have enjoyed your insights as 
well as your humor and your observations. 

I have had the pleasure in my previous life in the legislature to 
work with people on both sides of the aisle and have enjoyed that 
experience, particularly those who brought both insight and a com- 
mitment to public service, and a commitment to improving the 
lives of the American public. 



394 

We are going to miss that tremendous commitment that you 
have provided to this country. The country is better because of it, 
and we all offer our gratitude to you for your public service in the 
Senate. 

Senator Hatfield. Thank you very much. You are very generous. 

BUDGET REQUEST 

Mr. Linton. The Federal Transit Administration is requesting 
$4.3 billion in budgetary resources for fiscal year 1997. Our request 
represents a 6-percent increase over the fiscal year 1996 enacted 
budget of $4.05 billion. 

We appreciate the tight budgetary constraints with which the ad- 
ministration and the Congress must cope. However, the use of our 
scarce national transportation dollars for transit is an economically 
wise investment in our infrastructure and our quality of life. 

BENEFITS OF TRANSIT 

Ten million people ride transit every day to get to jobs, schools, 
shops, and health care facilities. Another 25 million use transit less 
frequency but on a regular basis. This budget ensures that the mo- 
bility needs of the American public are met. It addresses basic in- 
frastructure needs, and maintains our commitment to research 
projects that will lead to more efficient customer-oriented transit 
service. 

The multiple benefits of investing in transit are clear. By provid- 
ing an affordable, high-quality alternative to the automobile for 
commuting to work and other services, transit reduces traffic con- 
gestion, improves travel time for motorists, and reduces auto-relat- 
ed air pollution and fuel consumption. Transit also provides low- 
cost mobility for people who cannot afford to own or are unable to 
drive a car. It improves neighborhood vitality and the productivity 
of business centers. 

TRANSIT NEEDS 

The most recent report to Congress on transportation needs 
states that to meet increased travel demand we must invest $7.9 
billion each year over the next 20 years just to maintain the Na- 
tion's transit facilities and equipment in their current state of re- 
pair and accommodate projected growth in transit travel demand. 

This amount of investment is insufficient, however, to improve 
transit above its current quality of service. To improve transit serv- 
ice requires an annual investment of $12.9 billion. Funding at this 
level would eliminate the current backlog of unmet investment 
needs. It would ensure that bus and rail vehicles would be modern- 
ized and rehabilitated. Moreover, transit service will be improved 
with seats guaranteed for rush hour riders and shorter waiting 
times for buses and trains. 

In 1997, our budget includes $3.65 billion to be invested in tran- 
sit capital. When added to State and local capital funding, total 
transit investments should reach nearly $6 billion. However, it is 
important to note that this is only 75 percent of the $7.9 billion 
needed to maintain current conditions, insufficient to improve con- 



395 

ditions or to add service to deal with increased transit travel de- 
mand. 

It is important to note that when we did this report, 20 of the 
MPO's around the country indicated that they expected to have a 
2.4-percent increase in transit growth versus about 1.8-percent 
growth in highways, and that information was done by the MPO's 
throughout the various areas of the country. 

This was not the FTA's information. This was information that 
was derived from the local MPO's own assessment of what their 
needs would be in their metropolitan areas. 

So the budget that we are providing, in addition to what the local 
government is providing, is still only providing 75 percent of what 
is needed to meet those additional needs. 

Of the $4.3 billion requested for fiscal year 1997, $2.15 billion, 
about one-half, is for formula grants. This account funds capital 
and operating grants to both urban and nonurban areas as well as 
grants to assist the elderly and persons with disabilities. 

Funds in this account give local and State agencies the authority 
to use Federal funds for projects that meet their unique needs. For- 
mula grants can be used for all transit purposes: bus and railcar 
purchases, facility repair, and construction and operating cost, thus 
maximizing flexibility for transit authorities by allowing them to 
prioritize and target funds to their most important needs. 

This account is the primary source of funds used by transit au- 
thorities to meet the compliance cost of the Americans With Dis- 
abilities Act, the Clean Air Act amendments, and drug and alcohol 
testing requirements. 

OPERATING ASSISTANCE 

Included in our $2.15 billion request for formula grants is a cap 
of $500 million for urban operating assistance. This is a $100 mil- 
lion increase over the fiscal year 1996 operating assistance enacted 
level, but equals the President's 1996 budget request. 

Federal operating assistance has decreased 50 percent from $802 
million in fiscal year 1994 to $400 million in fiscal year 1996. The 
largest decrease was from $710 million in 1995 to $400 million in 
1996, a 44-percent reduction. 

In fiscal year 1996, operating assistance was reduced by 25 per- 
cent for small urban areas with populations between 50,000 and 
200,000 and by 48 percent for areas with populations over 200,000. 

Recent research concludes that transit operators who choose to 
offset reduced Federal operating assistance with higher fares will 
have to raise fares 20 to 30 percent over a 3-year period. Transit 
operators in urbanized areas under 200,000 in population face po- 
tential fare increases of 60 to 125 percent. 

Let me illustrate some specific real-world cases. In Oregon, the 
Salem area mass transit district, known as Cherriots, carries over 
3 million passengers annually. Its Federal operating assistance was 
reduced from $666,000 to $500,000. That is a 25-percent cut. To 
compensate for this drastic cut, Cherriots has used capital reserve 
funds, but this source has been steadily shrinking and will not be 
available again once it is gone. 

On May 21, a referendum will be held to raise property taxes to 
offset the decrease in Federal operating assistance funding. If the 



396 

referendum does not pass, transit service would have to be reduced 
by an estimated 10 percent, and fare increases will also be consid- 
ered. 

In Alabama, where the Montgomery, AL, transit system con- 
fronted a $427,000 Federal operating assistance shortfall in 1995, 
the bus system board took prompt action, using over $200,000 from 
the city's maintenance department as one-time emergency funding. 
But after finding short-term funds to keep the system running, the 
MATS board still had to pull its belt so tight that there will no 
longer be midday bus service, only two routes will operate on Sat- 
urdays, and 23 of the agency's employees had their jobs eliminated. 

And even as service goes down, fare goes up. Passenger fares in- 
creased from 50 cents to $1.50, and student fares went up a quar- 
ter, from 50 to 75 cents. A two-wage-earning family commuting by 
bus could pay an additional $500 a year for trips to work. 

It is also important to note, Mr. Chairman, that Montgomery, 
AL, is where Rosa Parks led the bus boycott, and I was able to 
stand with her on December 1 commemorating the 40-year anni- 
versary of the bus boycott. This is the same system where the fares 
have to go up from 50 cents to $1.50 and where midday service has 
been eliminated, and the city has had to use its own maintenance 
funds as one-time emergency assistance to keep the system operat- 
ing. 

I just found out this morning that Greenville, South Carolina's 
system went under last night. They just called up and said they 
stopped service without any notification. These are real, specific 
cases — I have a list of them all over the country — that are going 
on, and this is the kind of severe cuts and fare increases that are 
taking place, and we are trying to see if we can mitigate some of 
that. 

Senator Hatfield. May I interrupt at this point? Would they not 
have been more severe had they followed the administration's pro- 
posal in reducing those operating assistance programs by 30 per- 
cent, rather than the Congress only choosing to reduce them by 25 
percent? They would be more severe, would they not? 

Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman, the administration's request last 
year was $500 million. The request that we are making today is 
$500 miUion. 

Senator Hatfield, But again, I go back to what that request 
level would have caused in a reduction. As I have calculated, for 
instance, in Salem — I am sure all of them would have been the 
same for all smaller systems — ^but that would have been 30 percent 
under the administration's request for 1996, instead of the 25 per- 
cent, which was bad enough, but nevertheless the Congress at least 
increased that amount of money over the administration's request 
level. Is that accurate? 

Mr. Linton. I think the Congress' effort to help the smaller sys- 
tems with populations under 200,000 has, in fact, provided some 
assistance for a system like Salem. However, we are concerned 
about the administration's overall request last year for $500 mil- 
lion. If, in fact, that was provided, some of the severe reductions 
that systems have had would not have taken place. 



397 



DISCRETIONARY GRANTS 



In addition to formula grants, we are requesting a total of $1.8 
billion for discretionary grants in fiscal year 1997. Our budget 
seeks to restore fixed guideway modernization funding to the 1995 
level of $725 million, Federal funding in local matched support re- 
placement and rehabilitation of the existing rail fleet, and restora- 
tion of rail facilities such as stations, track, yards, and shops. 

We know that there is a backlog of 3,800 railcars that are beyond 
their useful life. We have also seen, particularly in terms of some 
of our most recent concerns about safety with automatic train con- 
trols, that increased rail modernization applications are needed at 
this point in time. The request for rail modernization funding at 
$725 million is, in fact, one that we would like to see supported. 

Our budget also calls for a stable, reliable source of funds for 
new start systems that are currently under or proposed for full 
funding grant agreement. FTA seeks $800 million for new system 
construction. At the requested level, FTA can fully meet outstand- 
ing commitments, thus providing a reliable funding source to com- 
plete construction projects in a timely and efficient manner, saving 
both Federal and local dollars. 

New system construction is in the national interest. Particularly 
in congested areas, new transit construction can be more effective 
than highway construction. Recent research by economists from the 
Hickling-Lewis-Brod firm examined major transportation corridors 
and determined that high-quality transit significantly improves the 
overall door-to-door time when operating in an exclusive bus or rail 
right of way. It improves the travel time for both transit riders and 
highway users. 

As motorists switch from automobile commuting to mass transit, 
congestion on highways lessens, and highway travel time improves. 
Increased transit investment in these corridors is an effective use 
of transportation revenues that clearly benefits motorists as well as 
transit users. By providing commuters affordable and high-quality 
transportation options, high-speed transit reduces congestion. 
Without transit, the Nation's $40 billion costs in annual traffic con- 
gestion would be $15 billion higher. 

Mr. Chairman, we will continue to promote the development of 
residential areas with a variety of commercial activities within 
walking distance of transit which are known to transportation 
planners as livable communities. The benefits of residing in such 
communities are substantial. Residents in these livable neighbor- 
hoods spend less time getting to places, tend to have more socially 
cohesive communities, and enjoy numerous other advantages. 

Metropolitan areas with substantial walkable neighborhoods gen- 
erate fewer vehicle miles traveled [VMT] than areas that are more 
auto-oriented. Fewer VMT means lower air pollution and other un- 
desirable side effects of auto travel. FTA calculates that the 80 mil- 
lion Americans who live in transit-intensive metropolitan areas 
save $20 billion in auto costs each year. 

RESEARCH 

We are also requesting a level for our national transit planning 
research program that is similar to our fiscal year 1996 level. This 



398 

will allow us to continue the exciting work that has been done to 
develop fuel cell and battery powered vehicles as well as the ad- 
vanced technology transit bus. 

These projects are making impressive strides toward realizing a 
new generation of transit vehicles which will be cleaner, safer, and 
more cost efficient than ever before. For example, it is estimated 
by applying this new technology, a fleet of 150 advanced technology 
buses will save over $500 million per year in fuel costs and 
$270,000 per year in brake replacement costs. 

We are currently nearing a major milestone with the Advanced 
Technology Transit Bus [ATTB] Program. In fiscal year 1997, the 
ATTB is expected to be operated in real-world transit service. The 
lack of needed Federal funding over the past several years has 
slowed this project's progress as local authorities tried to pick up 
the slack. 

Nevertheless, the first prototype vehicle will be available this 
fall. We are proposing to make the lump-sum payment to complete 
the remaining five prototypes and fully test the vehicles by the end 
of 1997. We intend to honor this commitment to bring these vehi- 
cles into public service through a combination of research and dis- 
cretionary bus funding. 

The fuel cell development project is also showing impressive 
progress. Completion of a prototype 40-foot phosphoric acid fuel cell 
transit bus is scheduled for late 1997, and the proton exchange 
membrane fuel cell will be ready in 1998. 

This builds upon a successful joint project with the Department 
of Energy that developed on time and within budget three 30-foot 
fuel-cell-powered buses now undergoing evaluation. These fuel cells 
could ultimately be used in the ATTB, and hold the promise of 
clean-running, ultra low emission transit service for the future. 

Mr. Chairman, I have had the pleasure of driving the shell of the 
ATTB. I think this project will bode well for all the buses in the 
country, and also I think it will allow us to produce a vehicle that 
will be in demand globally. 

This bus will be 10,000 pounds below the weight of buses that 
we currently have. Its useful life will greatly exceed that of any of 
the vehicles that we currently have in operation. It will also be able 
to use component parts that will decrease the amount of time that 
is needed for maintenance. It is a very, very fine product, and we 
expect to have the first prototype available in the fall of this year. 

REGULATORY BURDENS 

We have also moved to try to relieve some of the regulatory bur- 
dens that are imposed upon many of our grantees. I have often put 
myself in the shoes of the transit operators, and seek to find cre- 
ative ways to alleviate the regulatory burdens placed on the transit 
industry. I am here to report substantial success by FTA. 

I have worked hard to lessen the burdensome regulatory require- 
ments of Buy America and drug and alcohol testing. We have 
streamlined procurement requirements and recently revised our 
third party contracting circular to reduce requirements and in- 
crease grantee flexibility. Thanks to the support of this subcommit- 
tee, we have a new program in place that allows transit operators 



399 

to capitalize bus overhaul. This program went into effect on April 
1. 

Regarding 13(c) requirements, the new guidelines that became 
effective in January 1996 ensure that all projects will receive at 
least an interim certification within 60 days of the Department of 
Labor's receipt of a complete application. Initial results indicate 
that the new process has significantly improved processing times. 

Regarding the Americans With Disabilities Act, we held two ADA 
paratransit conferences bringing together operators and advocates 
of the disabled to discuss and propose solutions to issues related to 
paratransit implementation. As a result, we have developed guid- 
ance to assist operators seeking time extensions. A report on the 
outcomes of these meetings will be available in the near future. 

In another area, FTA's implementation of electronic grantmaking 
has increased efficient funds control and reduced paperwork. We 
have also created an FTA home page on the internet that enhances 
access to information on FTA apportionments and funding, circu- 
lars and regulations, FTA reports, and other program information. 
Also, our safety bulletin board is now online. This provides updated 
safety information to all of our grantees across America. 

INNOVATIVE FINANCING 

We have been quick to follow President Clinton's lead to create 
new opportunities to supplement Federal funds with money from 
private sources. In September 1994, FTA announced its innovative 
financing initiative requesting grantees to share information about 
their use of pioneering finance techniques applied to local transit 
projects. The initiative showcased the efforts of transit agencies in 
multiplying the value of Federal funds through innovative asset 
management and private sector involvement. 

We received 67 project proposals for 32 States and Puerto Rico 
representing a value of $4 billion, with significant matching of pub- 
lic funds by private-sector involvement. These projects involved 
many techniques, including leasing transit vehicles, which can be 
more cost effective than a direct purchase, joint development of 
transit facilities, which can multiply the commercial activity near 
transit hubs and bolster the economic well-being of communities, 
and State revolving loan funds to facilitate statewide vehicle pur- 
chase and leasing programs, thus reducing costs. 

The $2.3 million in innovative financing projects funded to date 
have leveraged over $7 million, 2.5 times the Federal investment, 
showing that the private sector is an important source of revenues 
for improved transportation. 

In conclusion, we have proposed a budget that is proactive in ad- 
dressing the key issues of infrastructure investment and capital 
maintenance. We seek this budget level because transit is vital to 
the American marketplaces — cities where American products and 
jobs compete in the global economic market. 

Transit creates access to jobs, keeps people connected to their 
communities, and since two-thirds of Americans live in metropoli- 
tan areas and 30 million rural Americans depend on transit, the 
transportation investment choices we make today will affect the 
well-being of our country and its citizens for generations to come. 



400 

Transit is a key to solving traffic gridlock. Research, as I indi- 
cated, suggests that transit investments can lower the cost of high- 
way congestion, adding to the $15 billion that transit already saves 
American taxpayers by reducing highway gridlock each year. 

I am committed to making transit work, Mr. Chairman. Once 
again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of our 
budget request. I am pleased to address any questions you may 
have. 

I look forward to working with you and the committee to enact 
the President's budget. 

If I can deviate for just a second, Mr. Chairman, to respond to 
a couple of points that you raised. In regard to the Times article 
where it made reference to the stealth campaign, as it described it, 
I will mention, Mr. Chairman, that the projects that we have fund- 
ed that were mentioned in the Times article are all the projects 
that have gone through our full funding grant agreements or 
projects that have been mentioned in our 3(j) report. 

These are all projects that either have been authorized or have 
received prior Federal support from the appropriating committees. 

We, as you probably know, have not had discretionary money in 
our section 3 bus program. All those projects, in fact, have been 
earmarked, so we do not have discretionary money that we can 
spread around the country, as the article seems to describe. These 
projects are projects that have been well-documented, which have 
gone through all of the committees and have received your support 
in the past. These are projects that were responsive to authoriza- 
tion as well as prior appropriations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT 

Senator HATFIELD, Thank you, Mr. Linton. We have your com- 
plete statement, and it will be made part of the record. 
[The statement follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Gordon J. Linton 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify in support of the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) fiscal year 1997 
budget. Joining me this morning is Janette Sadik-Khan, Acting Deputy Adminis- 
trator; Berle Schiller, Chief Counsel; and Hiram Walker, Associate Administrator 
for Program Management. 

Before I get started, however, I'd like to take a moment to congratulate vou, 
Chairman Hatfield, on a successful career in the Senate and to wish you all the best 
in whatever comes next. I know I am not exaggerating when I say that your wise 
and even-handed leadership has had a tremendous impact on this country; not least 
of all in the area of transit, where your experience and knowledge have been pivotal 
in helping the industry to survive during challenging times. I have enjoyed working 
with you over the course of the last few years, and have valued your insights, obser- 
vations, and sense of humor. Again, congratulations and best wishes for the future. 



The Federal Transit Administration is requesting $4.3 billion in budgetary re- 
sovu-ces for fiscal year 1997. Our request represents a six percent increase over our 
fiscal year 1996 enacted budget of $4.05 billion. We appreciate the tight budgetary 
constraints with which the Administration and Congress must cope, however, the 
use of our scarce national transportation dollars for transit is an economically wise 
investment in our infrastructure and our quality of life. Ten million people rely on 

shops, and " " " 



transit every day to get to jobs, schools, shops, and health care facilities. Another 
25 million use transit less frequently, but on a regxilar basis. This budget ensures 
that the mobility needs of the American people are met, addresses basic infrastruc- 



401 

ture needs, and maintains our commitment to research projects that will lead to 
more efficient, customer oriented transit service. 

The multiple benefits of investing in transit are clear. By providing an affordable, 
high-quality alternative to the automobile for commuting to work and to other serv- 
ices, transit reduces traffic congestion, improves travel time for motorists, and re- 
duces auto-related air pollution and fuel consumption. Transit also provides low-cost 
mobility for people who cannot afford to own or are unable to drive a car, and im- 
proves neighborhood vitality and the productivity of business centers. 

TRANSIT NEEDS 

The most recent report to Congress on transportation needs states that, to meet 
increased travel demand, we must invest $7.9 billion each year over the next 20 
years just to maintain the nation's transit facilities and equipment in their current 
state of repair and accommodate projected growth in transit travel demand. This 
amount of investment is insufficient, however, to improve transit above its current 
quality of service. To improve transit service requires an annual investment of $12.9 
billion. Funding at this level would eliminate the current backlog of unmet invest- 
ment needs. It would ensure that bus and rail vehicles would be modernized and 
rehabilitated. Moreover, transit service would be improved, with seats guaranteed 
for most rush hour riders and shorter waiting times for buses and trains. In 1997, 
our budget includes $3.65 billion to be invested in transit capital. When added to 
State and local capital funding, total transit investment should reach nearly $6 bil- 
lion, which is 75 percent of the $7.9 billion needed to maintain current conditions, 
but insufficient to either improve conditions or add service to deal with increased 
transit travel demand. 

THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET REQUEST 

Of the $4.3 billion requested for fiscal year 1997, $2.15 billion — about half— is for 
Formula Grants. This account funds capital and operating grants to both urban and 
non-urban areas as well as grants to assist the Elderly and Persons with Disabil- 
ities. Funds in this account give local and State agencies the authority to use federal 
funds for projects that meet their unique needs. Formula Grants can be used for 
all transit purposes — ^bus and railcar purchases, facility repair and construction and 
operating costs — thus maximizing flexibility for transit authorities and allowing 
them to prioritize and target funds to their most important needs. Each year this 
funding supports the purchase of about 5,400 urban buses and paratransit vans, 
and maintenance of the nation's 523 urban bus facilities. FTA also provides funds 
to support the replacement and rehabilitation of the nation's 15,600 rail cars, 2,271 
rail stations and 7,349 miles of track. This account is the primary source of funds 
used by transit authorities to meet the compliance costs of the Americans with Dis- 
abilities Act, the Clean Air Act amendments, and Drug and Alcohol testing require- 
ments. 

Included in our $2. 15 billion request for Formula Grants is a cap of $500 million 
for urban operating assistance. This is a $100 million increase over the fiscal year 
1996 operating assistance enacted level and equals the President's fiscal year 1996 
budget request. Federal operating assistance has decreased 50 percent from $802 
million in fiscal year 1994 to $400 million in fiscal year 1996. The largest decrease 
was from $710 million in fiscal year 1995 to $400 million in fiscal year 1996, a 44 
percent reduction. 

The fiscal year 1996 appropriation reduced Urban Formula operating support by 
25 percent for small urban areas with populations between 50,000 and 200,000 and 
by 48 percent for areas with populations over 200,000. Recent research concludes 
tnat transit operators who choose to offset reduced Federal operating assistance 
with higher fares will have to raise fares 20 percent to 30 percent over a three-year 
period. Transit operators in urbanized areas under 200,000 in population face poten- 
tial fare increases of 60 percent to 125 percent. 

Let me illustrate these numbers witii specific "real world" cases: In Oregon, the 
Salem Area Mass Transit District, known as Cherriots, carries over 3 million pas- 
sengers annually. Its Federal operating assistance was reduced from $666,000 to 
$500,000. That's a 25 percent cut. To compensate for this drastic cut, Cherriots has 
been using capital reserve fiinds, but this source has been steadily shrinking and 
will not be available again once it is gone. On May 21 a referendum will be held 
to raise property taxes to offset the decrease in Federal operating assistance fund- 
ing. If the referendum does not pass, transit service will have to be reduced by an 
estimated 10 percent, and fare increases will have to be considered. 

Another example comes from Pennsylvania. Within two weeks of the fiscal year 
1996 transportation appropriations act's passage, Harrisburg's Capital Area Transit 



402 

system's board of directors convened a special meeting. They had to deal with the 
48 percent reduction in Federal operating assistance which left a half-million dollar 
hole in their annual budget. The board took measures that now are faced by transit 
agencies nationwide, and raised bus fares 22 percent effective January 1, 1996. 

In Alabama, when the Montgomery Area Transit System (MATS) confronted a 
$427,961 Federal operating assistance shortfall late in 1995, the bus svstem's board 
took prompt action, using over $200,000 from the city's maintenance department as 
one-time emergency funding. But after finding short-term funds to keep the system 
running, the MATS board still had to pull its belt so tight that there will no longer 
be midday bus service, only two routes will operate on Saturdays, and 23 of the 
agency's employees had their jobs eliminated. And even as service goes down, fares 
go up. Passenger fares increased 50 cents to $1.50 and student fares went up a 
quarter from 50 cents to 75 cents. A two-wage earning family commuting by bus 
could pay an additional $500 per year for their trips to work. 

These are not isolated examples. Transit systems across the country have had to 
raise fares and reduce service, causing travelers to use transit services less often. 
Inevitably this puts additional cars on the roads, increasing congestion, pollution, 
and fuel consumption. The $400 million operating assistance limitation enacted for 
fiscal year 1996 is simply too severe. We need to commit to a $500 million level on 
a continuing basis so that our transit operators can count on a predictable level of 
Federal fiinding. The reductions of the past two years have precipitated a round of 
dramatic fare increases and service reductions that are reducing the basic mobility 
of millions of Americans. 

In addition to Formula Grants, we are requesting a total of $1.8 billion for Discre- 
tionary Grants in fiscal year 1997. Our budget seeks to restore fixed guideway mod- 
ernization (Rail Modernization) funding to tne fiscal year 1995 level of $725 million. 
Federal funding and local match support replacement and rehabilitation of the ex- 
isting rail fleet and restoration of rail facilities such as stations, track, and yards 
and shops. Nationally, there are 7,439 miles of track, 2,271 stations, and 119 rail 
maintenance facilities. About 73 percent of elevated structures, 41 percent of third 
rail, and 48 percent of maintenance facilities are currently in less than good condi- 
tion and require major investment. Recent levels of funding have been barely ade- 
quate to keep rail vehicles and facilities in current condition. Meanwhile, there is 
a backlog of 3,800 rail cars that are beyond their useful life. This important infra- 
structure requires a major investment commitment. 

Our budget will also provide a stable and reliable source of funds for New Starts 
systems that are currently under, or proposed for. Full Funding Grant Agreements 
(FFGA's). FTA seeks $800 million for new system construction. At the requested 
level FTA can fully meet outstanding commitments, thus providing a reliable fund- 
ing source to complete construction projects in a timely and efficient manner and 
saving both Federal and local dollars. 

New system construction is in the national interest. Particularly in congested 
areas, new transit construction can be more effective than highway construction. Re- 
cent research by the economics firm Hickling-Lewis-Brod examined major transpor- 
tation corridors and determined that high-quality transit (i.e. high-capacity transit 
operating in an exclusive bus or rail right-of-way) significantly improves the overall 
door-to-^or travel time for both transit riders and highway users. As motorists 
switch fi-om automobile commuting to mass transit, congestion on highways lessens 
and hirfiway travel time improves. Increased transit investment in these corridors 
is an effective use of transportation revenues that clearly benefits motorists. 

By providing commuters an affordable and high quality transportation option, 
high speed transit reduces cong